fttti 


sm 


111 


m 


Mm 

fSPii 

•■■:>•. 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 
TO  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 


THE  CANON 


o- 


0 


^ 


ON 

(       * 


'J 


BY 


WILLIAM  HENRY  GREEN,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

PROFESSOR    OF    ORIENTAL   AND    OLD    TESTAMENT    LITERATURE    IN    PRINCETON 
THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY 


NEW  YORK 
CHARLES    SCRIBNEK'S    SONS 

1906 


4 


CoFTRIGHT    1898,  BT 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


TROW  DIRECTORY 

PRINTING  AND  BOOKBINDING  COMPANT 

NEW  YORK 


PREFACE 

Any  one  who  addresses  himself  to  the  study  of  the 
Old  Testament  will  desire  first  to  know  something  of 
its  character.  It  comes  to  us  as  a  collection  of  books 
which  have  been  and  still  are  esteemed  peculiarly  sa- 
cred. How  did  they  come  to  be  so  regarded  ?  Is  it 
due  simply  to  a  veneration  for  antiquity  ?  Is  this  a  col- 
lection of  the  literature  of  ancient  Israel,  which  later 
generations  prized  as  a  relic  of  early  ages  ?  Is  it  a 
body  of  Hebrew  literature  to  which  sanctity  was  at- 
tributed because  of  its  being  written  in  the  sacred 
tongue  ?  Is  it  a  collection  of  the  books  containing 
the  best  thoughts  of  the  most  enlightened  men  of  the 
Israelitish  nation,  embodying  their  religious  faith  and 
their  conceptions  of  human  duty  ?  Or  is  it  more  than 
all  this?  Is  it  the  record  of  a  divine  revelation,  made 
through  duly  authorized  and  accredited  messengers 
sent  of  God  for  this  purpose  ? 

The  first  topic  which  is  considered  in  this  volume 
is  accordingly  that  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which  is  here  treated  not  theologically  but  historically. 
We  meet  at  the  outset  two  opposing  views  of  the 
growth  of  the  canon  :  one  contained  in  the  statements 
of  the  Old  Testament  itself,  the  other  in  the  theories  of 
modern  critics,  based  upon  the  conception  that  these 
books  gradually  acquired  a  sacredness  which  did  not 
at  first  belong  to  them,  and  which  did  not  enter  into 


viii  PREFACE 

the  purpose  for  which  they  were  written.  This  is 
tested  on  the  one  hand  by  the  claims  which  the  various 
writers  make  for  themselves,  and  on  the  other  by  the 
regard  shown  for  these  books  by  those  to  whom  they 
were  originally  given.  The  various  arguments  urged 
by  critics  in  defence  of  their  position  that  the  canon 
was  not  completed  nor  the  collection  made  until  sev- 
eral centuries  after  the  time  traditionally  fixed  and 
currently  believed  are  considered ;  and  reasons  are 
given  to  show  that  it  might  have  been  and  probably 
was  collected  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  or  in  their  time. 

The  question  then  arises  as  to  the  books  of  which 
the  Old  Testament  properly  consists.  Can  the  books 
of  which  it  was  originally  composed  be  certainly  iden- 
tified? And  are  they  the  same  that  are  now  in  the 
Old  Testament  as  we  possess  it,  and  neither  more  nor 
less?  This  is  answered  by  tracing  in  succession  the 
Old  Testament  as  it  was  accepted  by  the  Jews,  as  it 
was  sanctioned  by  our  Lord  and  the  inspired  writers 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  as  it  has  been  received  in 
the  Christian  Church  from  the  beginning.  The  Apoc- 
rypha though  declared  to  be  canonical  by  the  Council 
of  Trent,  and  accepted  as  such  by  the  Koman  Catholic 
Church,  are  excluded  from  the  canon  by  its  history 
traced  in  the  manner  just  suggested  as  well  as  by  the 
character  of  their  contents,  which  is  incompatible  with 
the  idea  of  their  authors  being  divinely  inspired. 

Princeton,  N.  J., 
October  3,  1898. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGB 

HISTORY  OF  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  OLD  TESTA- 
MENT      1 

Introduction,  the  term  and  the  science  modern  ;  the  early 
Christians,  Origen,  Augustin,  Jerome,  1  ;  Adrian,  Eucherius, 
Cassiodorus ;  after  the  Reformation,  Walther,  Walton, 
Hobbes,  Spinoza,  Richard  Simon,  Carpzov,  2  ;  Eichhorn, 
Jaun,  Herbst,  Welte,  DeWette,  3  ;  Hengstenberg,  Haver- 
nicic,  Home  ;Keil,  Kurtz,  Nosgen,  Bleek,  Stahelin,4 ;  Reuss, 
Wellhausen,  Kuenen  ;  St  rack,  Konig  ;  A.  Zahn,  Rupprecht, 
Hoedemaker,  Stosch  ;  S.  Davidson,  Robertson  Smith,  Driv- 
er ;  Douglas,  Valpy  French  and  his  collaborators,  5. 

GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  OLD  TESTA- 
MENT 7 

Introduction  defined  and  limited  ;  general  and  special ; 
canon  and  text,  7,  8. 

THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

I. 
The  Canon 9 

Derivation  and  meaning  of  the  word  canon,  9,  10. 

II. 

Testimony  op  the  Bible  in  regard  to  the  Formation 
op  the  Canon 11 

Directions  by  Moses  respecting  the  law,  11  ;  thenceforth 
divinely  authoritative,  12,  13 ;  addition  by  Joshua,  13 ; 
Samuel,  14  ;  the  law  in  the  temple,  other  copies  of  the  law, 
15,  16  ;  books  of  the  prophets  also  canonical,  recapitulation, 
17, 18. 

ix 


X  CONTENTS 

III. 

PAGE 

The  Critical  Theory  op  the  Formation  of  the  Canon  .    19 

Eichkorn  admitted  that  the  law  was  canonical  from  the 
time  of  Moses ;  this  denied  by  more  recent  critics,  19  ;  Deu- 
teronomy canonized  under  Josiah,  the  entire  Pentateuch 
under  Ezra  as  the  first  canon,  20  ;  a  second  canon  of  the 
prophets  much  later,  21  ;  the  hagiographa,  a  third  canon, 
later  still,  22  ;  argued,  1,  from  late  origin  of  certain  books; 
2,  the  threefold  division  of  the  canon,  23  ;  3,  the  Samari- 
tan canon  ;  4,  the  Synagogue  lessons,  24  ;  5,  the  law,  or  the 
law  and  the  prophets,  used  to  denote  the  whole  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  6,  order  of  books  in  2d  and  3d  divisions ;  7,  books 
disputed,  25. 

IV. 

The  Determining  Principle  in  the  Formation  op  the 
Canon 26 

Prime  error  of  the  critics,  Ewald,  Dillmann,  26,  27; 
Eichhorn,  early  national  literature,  28 ;  Hitzig,  Hebrew  lit- 
erature, 29  ;  religious  character,  Robertson  Smith,  30,  31  ; 
claim  made  by  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  32  ;  the  law 
regarded  from  the  first  as  a  divine  revelation,  33 ;  so  like- 
wise the  books  of  the  prophets,  34  ;  this  not  a  theological 
speculation,  but  a  historical  fact,  35,  36. 


V. 

The  Completion  op  the  Canon 37 

Testimony  of  Josephus,  37  ;  not  merely  his  private  opin- 
ion, 38 ;  his  mistake  regarding  the  Persian  kings,  39 ;  he 
ascribes  prophetic  power  to  John  Hyrcanus  :  critical  allega- 
tions, presumption  against  them  from  the  common  belief 
of  the  Jewish  nation,  40  ;  Chronicles,  no  proof  of  late  date 
from  its  genealogies,  41  ;  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  the  title 
King  of  Persia,  42-44  ;  Jaddua,  Darius  the  Persian.  45-48  ; 
the  days  of  Nehemiah  ;  Ezra  iv.  6-23,  49,  50 :  Ezra  vii. 
1-10,  51,  52  ;  long  periods  passed  over  in  silence,  52;  Ec- 
clesiastes,  governmental  abuses,  53  ;  its  language  and  ideas, 
54,  55  ;  Esther,  55,  56  ;  Daniel,  statement  of  Delitzsch,  56  ; 
historical  objections,  o,  put  in  the  hagiographa,  57 ;  b,  not 


CONTENTS  XI 

,  PAQB 

mentioned  by  the  son  of  Sirach,  58  ;  c,  third  year  of  Je- 
hoiakim,  i.  1  ;  d,  Chaldeans,  a  caste  of  wise  men,  59  ;  e, 
Belshazzar,  king  and  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  60-05  ;  /, 
Darius  the  Mede,  G6 ;  g,  the  books,  ix.  2;  A,  other  indica- 
tions of  late  date,  67  ;  language  of  the  book,  08-70  ;  pre- 
dictions of  the  remote  future,  71,72;  specific  predictions 
do  not  end  with  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  73  ;  blends  with 
Messiah's  reign  as  usual  in  prophecy,  74;  the  compromise 
attempted  is  futile,  75;  genuine  predictions  admitted  and 
traditional  basis  assumed,  7G  ;  Maccabean  Psalms,  77  ;  the 
statement  of  Josephus  and  the  belief  of  the  Jews  not  dis- 
proved, 78. 


VI. 

The  Threefold  Division  of  the  Canon 79 

The  prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus,  79 ;  fourfold  division  of 
the  Septuagint ;  the  Hebrew  division  based,  not  on  the 
character  of  the  books,  nor  various  grades  of  inspiration, 
but  the  official  status  of  the  writers,  80,  81;  Dillmann's 
objection  ;  Moses  Stuart,  82,  83  ;  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Chroni- 
cles, Daniel,  84-86 ;  Lamentations,  87  ;  Strack's  objections, 
88 ;  origin  of  the  number  22,  views  of  critics,  89,  90 ;  con- 
clusion, 91,  92. 

VII. 

When  and  by  Whom  Collected 93 

Authority  of  the  books  not  dependent  on  their  collec- 
tion ;  Elias  Levita  ascribed  the  collection  to  Ezra  and  the 
Great  Synagogue,  93 ;  the  passage  from  Baba  Bathra,  94, 
95 ;  theory  of  modern  critics,  96  ;  its  mistakes  corrected,  97 ; 
critics  urge,  1,  Ezra  only  bound  the  people  to  obey  the  law, 
98 ;  2,  Samaritans  only  acknowledge  the  Pentateuch,  99  ; 
3,  Scriptures  read  in  the  Synagogue,  100 ;  4,  usage  of  terms 
41  the  law  "  and  "  the  law  and  the  prophets,"  101,  102  ;  5, 
arguments  based  on  certain  critical  conclusions  :  (1)  dis- 
crepancies between  Chronicles  and  Samuel  or  Kings ;  (2) 
composite  character  of  Isaiah,  103,  104  ;  (3)  Zech.  ix.-xiv.  ; 
(4)  Daniel,  105 ;  (5)  books  of  prophets  not  canonical  until 
prophecy  had  ceased,  106  ;  it  is  alleged  (1)  that  none  of  the 
k'thubhim   were  ad  nutted    until   the  second   division    was 


Xli  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

closed,  107  ;  (2)  late  date  of  some  books  ;  (3)  Chronicles  pre- 
ceded by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  108  ;  (4)  additions  to  Esther 
and  Daniel ;  canonization  not  to  be  confounded  with  col- 
lection, Bellarmin,  109,  110;  prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus, 
111  ;  attempts  to  weaken  its  force,  112  ;  2  Esdras  xiv.  21 
fl\,  113  ;  2  Mace.  ii.  13, 114 ;  1,  Ezra  the  scribe,  115  ;  2,  needs 
of  the  period  following  the  exile,  116 ;  3,  private  collections 
already  existed ;  4,  all  the  sacred  books  then  written  ;  5,  the 
cessation  of  prophecy,  117,  118. 


VIII. 

The  Extent  op  the  Canon — The  Canon  op  the  Jews  .  119 

Division  of  the  subject;  the  Talmud,  119;  Josephus, 
120-122  ;  the  canon  of  the  Samaritans,  122  ;  the  Sadducees, 
123  ;  Essenes,  Therapeutae,  124 ;  Alexandrian  Jews,  124- 
126  ;  the  Septuagint,  127,  128 ;  the  notion  that  there  was  no 
defined  canon  in  Alexandria,  129  ;  Movers  argues  for  an  en- 
larged canon  in  Palestine,  130  ;  disputations  in  the  Talmud, 
131-136  ;  Baruch  and  Ecclesiasticus  have  no  sanction  in  the 
Talmud,  137;  critical  perplexity  respecting  the  admission 
of  Daniel  and  rejection  of  Ecclesiasticus,  138;  passages 
from  the  Talmud,  138-140. 


IX. 

The  Canon  op  Christ  and  His  Apostles 141 

They  sanction  the  Jewish  canon  negatively ;  and  positive- 
ly, 1,  by  express  statements,  141 ;  2,  general  references,  142; 
3,  direct  citation,  143  ;  this  the  highest  possible  proof  of  its 
correctness,  144;  use  of  Septuagint,  1,  not  sanction  its  in- 
accuracies ;  2,  not  liable  to  be  misunderstood ;  3,  not  quote 
the  Apocrypha,  145  ;  alleged  traces  of  acquaintance  with 
the  Apocrypha,  146,  147  ;  Jude  vs.  14,  15  from  Book  of 
Enoch;  Jude  ver.  9,  148;  James  iv.  6  ;  1  Cor.  ii.  9,  149; 
Eph.  v.  14 ;  John  vii.  38,  150 ;  Luke  xi.  49 ;  2  Tim.  iii.  8, 

151  ;  Mat.   xxvii.  9  ;    Wildeboer's  extravagant  conclusion, 

152  ;  sacred  books  of  the  Jews  distinguished  from  all  others, 

153  ;  allegation  that  some  books  were  still  disputed,  154  ;  at- 
titude of  the  New  Testament  to  the  Old,  155,  156. 


CONTENTS  Xlll 

X. 

PAGE 

The  Canon  op  the  Christian  Church 157 

Question  between  Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants,  157  ; 
decision  of  Christ  the  supreme  authority  ;  meaning  of  ca- 
nonical, 158  ;  and  apocryphal,  159,  1G0 ;  catalogue  of  Melito, 
160,  161 ;  Justin  Martyr,  Syriac  version,  162;  Origen,  Ter- 
tullian,  163;  Council  of  Laodicea,  164;  fourth  century 
catalogues,  165,  166;  Augustin,  Councils  of  Hippo  and 
Carthage,  167-174  ;  testimony  of  the  first  four  centuries 
175  ;  the  Greek  Church  ;  the  Western  Church,  176  ;  Cardi 
nals  Ximenes  and  Cajetan,  177;  Innocent  L,  Gelasius 
178  ;  Council  at  Florence ;  Council  of  Trent,  179  ;  Apoc 
rypha  in  popular  usage,  180 ;  included  in  early  versions 
181,  182  ;  read  in  the  churches,  183-185  ;  quoted  by  the 
fathers,  185,  186  ;  under  the  same  titles  as  the  canonical 
books,  187-189  ;  attributed  to  prophets  or  inspired  men,  189, 
190  ;  proto-canonical,  and  deutero-canonical  ;  doctrine  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  ;  the  Greek  Church,  191  ;  Prot- 
estant Churches,  192  ;  the  apocryphal  controversy,  193,  194. 

XI. 

The  Apocrypha  Condemned  by  Internal  Evidence  .  .  195 

Value  of  internal  evidence  ;  Tobit,  Judith,  195,196  ;  "Wis- 
dom, Ecclesiasticus,  197,  198  ;  Maccabees,  199  ;  Additions 
to  Esther  and  Daniel,  200. 

XII. 

Order  and  Number  op  the  Canonical  Books 201 

Inferences  from  Eccles.  xii.  12-14 ;  Matt,  xxiii.  35,  201  ; 
and  Luke  xxiv.  44,  202;  Talmudic  order  of  the  prophets, 
202-205  ;  of  the  hagiographa;  greater  and  lesser  k'tlmbhim, 
206  ;  Massoretic  arrangement ;  German  manuscripts  ;  Je- 
rome, 207  ;  the  Septuagint ;  varied  enumeration,  208,  209. 


TREATISES  CONSULTED  ON  THE 
CANON 

These  treatises  are  arranged  in  the  order  of  their 
publication,  that  their  position  in  the  discussion  may  be 
aeen  at  a  glance. 

Bishop  Cosln  :  A  Scholastical  History  of  the  Canon,  1672.  af*c 
J.   D.  Michaelis:  Review  of  Oeder's  Freye  Untersuchung  uber 

einige  Bticlier  des  Alten  Testaments,  in  the  Orientalische  und 

Exegetische  Bibliothek,  No.  2, 1772. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  :  Review  of  Semler's  Abhandlung  von  freyer  Unter- 
suchung des  Canon,  in  the  same,  No.  3,  1772. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  :  Review  of  Hornemann's  Observationes  ad  illus- 

trationem  doctrinae  de  Canone  Veteris  Testamenti  ex  Philone,  in 

the  same,  No.  9,  1775. 
J.  G.  Eichhorn  :  Historische  Untersuchung  iiber  den  Kanon  des 

Alten  Testaments,  in  the  Repertorium  ftir  Biblische  und  Morgen- 

landische  Litteratur,  No.  5,  1779. 
J.  G.  Eichhorn  :  Review  of  Corrodi's  Versuch  einer  Beleuchtung 

der  Geschichte  des  Judischen  und  Christlichen  Bibel-Kanons,  in 

the  Allgemeine  Bibliothek  der  Biblischen  Litteratur,  Vol.  4, 

1792. 
J.  G.  Eichhorn  :  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  3d  Ed.,  1803 ; 

4th  Ed.,  1823. 
G.  L.  Baiter  :  Einleitung  in  die  Schrif ten  des  Alten  Testaments,  3d 

Ed.,  1806. 
L.  Bertholdt  :  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  und  Neue  Testament,  1812. 

E.  W.  Hengstenberg  :  Die  Authentic  des  Daniel,  1831. 

H.  A.  C.  Havernick  :  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1836. 
J.  G.  Herbst:  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  edited  by  B. 
Welte,  1840. 

F.  C.  Movers  :  Loci  quidam  Historioe  Canonis  Veteris  Testamenti 

illustrati,  1842. 
Moses  Stuart  :  Critical  History  and  Defence  of  the  Old  Testament 
Canon,  1845. 

XT 


XVI  TREATISES   CONSULTED   ON   THE   CANON 

»  W.  M.  L.  de  Wette  :  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  6th  Ed., 
1845  ;  8th  Ed.  by  E.  Schrader,  1869. 
L.  Herzfeld  :  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  Vol  I.,  1847 ;  Vol.  III., 

1863. 
A.  McClelland  :  Canon  and  Interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
1850. 

A.  Alexander  :  The  Canon  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  1851, 
P.  F.  Keerl  :  Die  Apokryphen  des  Alten  Testaments,  1852. 

K.  F.  Keil  :  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1853  ;  2d  Ed.  trans- 
lated into  English  by  G.  C.  M.  Douglas,  1869. 

H.  Ewald:  Ueber  das  suchen  und  finden  sogenannter  Makka- 
baischer  Psalmen,  in  the  Jahrbucher  der  Biblischen  Wissen- 
schaft,  1854. 

H.  Ewald  :  Ueber  die  Heiligkeit  der  Bibel,  in  the  same,  1855. 

B.  Welte  :  Bemerkungen  ttber  die  Entstehung  des  alttest.  Canons, 

in  the  Theologische  Quartalschrift,  1855. 
P.  de  Jong  :  Disquisitio  de  Psalmis  Maccabaicis,  1857. 
G.  F.  Oehler:  Kanon  des  Alten  Testaments,  in  Herzog's  Real- 

Encyklopadie,  Vol.  VII.,  1857. 

A.  Dillmann  :  Ueber  die  Bildung  der  Sammlung  heiliger  Schrif  ten 

Alten  Testaments,  in  the  Jahrbucher  fur  Deutsche  Theologie, 
Vol.  III.,  1858. 
F.  Bleek  :  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1860 ;  4th  Ed.  by  J. 
Wellhausen,  1878. 

B.  F.  Westcott  :  The  Canon  of  Scripture,  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of 

the  Bible,  1860. 
1  B.  F.  Westcott  :  The  Bible  in  the  Church,  1866. 
*  J.  Furst  :  Der  Kanon  des  Alten  Testaments  nach  den  Ueberliefer- 

ungen  in  Talmud  und  Midrasch,  1868. 
L.  Diestel  :  Geschichte  des  Alten  Testamentes  in  der  Christlichen 

Kirche,  1869. 

C.  Ehrt  :  Abfassungszeit  und  Abschluss  des  Psalters,  1869. 

J.  Derenbourg  :  L'Histoire  et  la  Geographie  de  la  Palestine  d'apres 

les  Thalmuds  et  les  autres  Sources  Rabbiniques,  1869. 
H.  Stelner  :  Kanon  des  Alten  Testaments,  in  Schenkel's  Bibel- 

Lexicon,  1871. 
I.  S.  Bloch  :  Geschichte  der  Sammlung  der  Althebraischen  Litera- 

tur,  1876. 
W.  L.  Alexander:    Canon,  in   Kitto's  Cyclopaedia  of  Biblical 

Literature,  1876. 
.   H.  L.  Strack  :  Kanon  des  Alten  Testaments,  in  Herzog-Plitt's  Real- 

Encyklopadie,  Vol.  VII.,  1880. 
S.  Davidson  :  The  Canon  of  the  Bible,  1880. 


TREATISES   CONSULTED   ON   THE   CANON         XV11 

W.  Robertson  Smitii  :  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church, 

1st  Ed.,  1881  ;2dEd.,  1892. 
G.  A.  Marx  (Dalman)  :   Traditio  Rahbinorum   Veterrima  de  Li- 

brorum  Veteris  Testamenti  Online  atque  Origiue,  1884. 

F.  Buhl  :  Kanon  uud  Text  des  Alten  Testaments,  1891. 

S.  R.  Driver  :  An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 1st  Ed.,  1891 ;  6th  Ed.,  1897. 
H.  E.  Ryle  :  The  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  1892. 
E.  Konig  :  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1893. 

G.  Wildeboer  :  The  Origin  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament 

Translated  by  B.  W.  Bacon,  edited  by  G.  F.  Moore,  1895. 


HISTOEY  OF  INTRODUCTION    TO    THE   OLD 
TESTAMENT ! 

Introduction,  as  a  technical  term,  is  of  comparatively 
modern  date,  and  borrowed  from  the  German.  It  was 
introduced  as  a  generic  designation  of  those  studies, 
which  are  commonly  regarded  as  preliminary  to  the 
interpretation  of  the  Scriptures.  As  a  science  or  a 
branch  of  systematic  learning,  Introduction  is  of  mod- 
ern growth.  The  early  Christian  writers  were  either 
not  sufficiently  aware  of  its  importance,  or  imperfectly 
provided  with  the  means  of  satisfactorily  treating  it. 
Their  attention  was  directed  chiefly  to  the  doctrinal 
contents  of  Scripture,  and  it  was  only  when  the  genu- 
ineness or  divine  authority  of  some  part  or  the  whole 
was  called  in  question,  that  they  seem  to  have  con- 
sidered these  preliminary  subjects  as  at  all  impor- 
tant ;  as  for  instance,  when  the  attack  upon  the  Penta- 
teuch by  Celsus,  and  on  Daniel  by  Porphyry,  excited 
Origen  and  others  to  defend  them,  an  effect  extending 
only  to  the  Evidences  of  Revealed  Religion  and  the 
Canon  of  Scripture.  The  most  ancient  writings  that 
can  be  described  as  general  treatises  upon  this  subject 
are  by  the  two  most  eminent  Fathers  of  the  fourth 
century,  Augustin  and  Jerome.     The  four  books  of  the 

1  This  brief  sketch  is  extracted  from  an  unpublished  lecture  of  ray 
former  friend,  preceptor,  and  colleague,  Dr.  Joseph  Addison  Alex- 
ander, for  many  years  the  ornament  and  pride  of  Princeton  Theologi- 
cal Seminary.  It  was  written  in  1843,  and  is  here  inserted  as  a 
memento  of  a  brilliant  scholar  and  in  humble  acknowledgment  of 
indebtedness  to  his  instructions. 
1 


2  HISTORY    OF  INTRODUCTION 

former  de  Doctrina  Christiana  contain,  according  to  his 
own  description,  praecepta  tractandarum  Scripturarum, 
and  belong  therefore  chiefly  to  Hermeneutics.  He  was 
ignorant  of  Hebrew,  but  his  strength  of  intellect  and  in- 
genuity enabled  him  to  furnish  many  valuable  maxims 
of  interpretation.  Jerome's  book  was  called  "  Libellus 
de  optimo  interpretandi  genere."  It  is  chiefly  contro- 
versial and  of  much  less  value  than  Augustin's. 

The  first  work  which  appeared  under  the  name  of 
Introduction  was  in  Greek,  the  Elaaycoyrj  ek  t<z?  Sela? 
rypacpds  of  Adrian.  Its  date  is  doubtful,  and  its  contents 
restricted  to  the  style  and  diction  of  the  sacred  writers. 
An  imperfect  attempt  to  methodize  the  subject  was 
made  by  Eucherius,  Bishop  of  Lyons,  in  the  fifth  cen- 
tury ;  but  the  first  important  advance  was  made  in  the 
sixth  century  by  Cassiodorus,  a  Benedictine  monk,  in 
his  work  "  De  Institutione  Divinarum  Scripturarum," 
which  treats  especially  the  subject  of  the  Canon  and  of 
Hermeneutics,  and  was  the  standard  work  in  this  de- 
partment through  the  Middle  Ages. 

The  philological  branches  of  the  subject  were  first 
treated  in  detail  after  the  Beformation.  The  earliest 
important  works  of  this  kind  were  the  "  Officina  Biblica 
of  Walther"in  1636,  and  Bishop  Walton's  "Prolego- 
mena to  the  London  Polyglott "  in  1657,  which  is  par- 
ticularly rich  in  reference  to  Biblical  Philology  and 
Criticism.  The  insidious  attacks  on  the  divine  author- 
ity of  Scripture  by  Hobbes  and  Spinoza,  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  seventeenth  century,  called  forth  as  its  pro- 
fessed defender  Bichard  Simon,  a  Bomish  priest  of 
great  ingenuity  and  considerable  learning,  but  of  un- 
sound principles.  His  Critical  Histories  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  provoked  much  censure,  and  gave  oc- 
casion to  the  first  systematic  Introduction  to  the  Old 
Testament,  that  of  Carpzov,  which  appeared  in  1721, 


HISTORY   OF   INTRODUCTION  3 

and  is  chiefly  occupied  with  the  evidences  of  revealed 
religion  and  with  hermeneutics. 

In  the  eighteenth  century,  Introduction  rose  to  great 
importance,  and  the  writers  on  it  exercised  great  influ- 
ence. The  principles  which  Simon  had  obscurely  rec- 
ommended, were  avowed  and  carried  out  by  Sender 
and  his  followers,  who  introduced  a  general  scepticism 
as  to  the  canonical  authority  of  some  books  and  the  in- 
spiration of  the  whole.  The  Bible  now  began  to  be 
studied  and  expounded  as  a  classic,  with  reference 
merely  to  the  laws  of  taste.  Upon  this  principle  the 
great  work  of  Eichhom  was  constructed,  the  first  com- 
plete Introduction  to  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
the  influence  of  which  has  been  incalculably  great  in 
giving  an  infidel  character  to  modern  German  exegesis. 
The  counteracting  influence  of  Jahn,  a  learned  Koman 
Catholic  professor  at  Yienna,  has  been  lessened  by  his 
great  inferiority  to  Eichhom,  both  in  taste  and  genius, 
and  his  equal  want  of  judgment  as  to  some  important 
points.  Another  valuable  work  on  Introduction  from  a 
Roman  Catholic  source  is  that  of  Herbst,  Professor  in 
Tubingen,  edited  after  the  author's  death  by  his  col- 
league Welte  in  1840,  and  greatly  improved  by  his  sound 
conservative  additions.  Eichhorn's  work,  which  first  ap- 
peared in  1780,  and  in  a  fourth  edition  more  than  forty 
years  after,  is  in  several  volumes  ;  but  the  same  general 
principles  of  unbelief  are  taught  in  a  compendious  form 
with  great  skill  and  talent  by  De  Wette,  one  of  the 
most  eminent  of  living  German  theologians.1  His  In- 
troduction to  the  Old  Testament,  filling  a  moderate 
octavo,  is  convenient  as  presenting  a  compendious  view 
of  the  whole  subject,  with  minute  and  ample  references 
to  the  best  authorities.     His  views,  however,  as  to  in- 

1  De  Wette  died  1849. 


4  HISTORY   OF   INTRODUCTION 

spiration  are  completely  infidel.  Hengstenberg,  Profes- 
sor at  Berlin,  a  leading  writer  of  the  Christian  or  be- 
lieving school,  began  a  conservative  reaction  on  the 
Protestant  side  by  publishing  at  intervals  a  series  of 
works  upon  detached  parts  of  the  subject ;  and  one  of 
his  pupils,  Havernick  of  Rostock,  with  the  same  prin- 
ciples as  Hengstenberg,  but  less  clear  and  judicious, 
has  just  finished  a  systematic  work  upon  the  whole  of  it. 
It  may  be  proper  to  add  that  most  of  the  works  which 
have  been  described  or  mentioned  comprehend  only  a 
part  of  Introduction  in  its  widest  sense,  the  application 
of  the  name  being  different  as  to  extent  in  different  sys- 
tems. Almost  all  the  systematic  works  on  Introduction 
exclude  Antiquities  or  Archaeology,  as  so  extensive  and 
so  unconnected  with  the  others  as  to  be  treated  more 
conveniently  apart.  This  is  not  the  case,  however,  with 
the  only  comprehensive  work  in  English  on  the  general 
subject,  that  of  Home — a  work  which  cannot  be  too  highly 
recommended  for  the  soundness  of  its  principles,  its 
Christian  spirit,  its  methodical  arrangement,  and  the 
vast  amount  of  valuable  information  which  it  certainly 
contains.  Its  faults  are  that  it  is  a  compilation,  and  as 
such  contains  opinions  inconsistent  with  each  other, 
and  in  some  cases  even  contradictory,  and  also  that  the 
style  is  heavy,  and  the  plan  too  formal  and  mechanically 
systematic. 

Little  need  be  added  to  this  sketch,  written  more  than 
fifty  years  ago.  The  reaction  begun  by  Hengstenberg, 
was  vigorously  continued  by  Keil  and  Kurtz,  and  after 
them  by  Noesgen.  Bleek  and  Stahelin,  who  still  be- 
longed to  the  elder  school  of  critics,  were  disposed  to 
take  a  moderate  position,  and  to  recede  from  some  of  the 
more  advanced  conclusions  of  their  predecessors.  This 
tendency  was  suddenly  checked,  however,  by  the  rise 


HISTORY   OF   INTRODUCTION  5 

of  the  extreme  school  of  lteuss,  Wellhausen,  and  Kuo- 
uen,  which  is  now  in  the  ascendant;  so  that  even  evan- 
gelical scholars,  like  Strack  and  Konig,  largely  accept 
their  conclusions,  and  souk  to  reconcile  them  with  faith 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  An  able  and  de- 
termined revolt  against  these  destructive  opinions  has  of 
late  been  initiated  by  prominent  university-bred  pastors, 
such  as  Adolph  Zahn  of  Stuttgart,  Edouard  ltupprecht 
of  Bavaria,  Hoedemaker  of  Amsterdam,  and  Stosch  of 
Berlin,  who  stand  on  thoroughly  conservative  ground. 

In  Great  Britain  a  tenth  edition  of  Home's  Introduc- 
tion was  prepared  by  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson,  and  largely 
rewritten  by  him  with  a  large  infusion  of  German  learn= 
ing  and  critical  ideas,  though  still  maintaining  conser- 
vative positions.  Subsequently  he  published  an  Intro- 
duction of  his  own,  in  which  his  former  conservative 
conclusions  were  completely  reversed.  It  was,  however, 
the  brilliant  and  eloquent  Robertson  Smith,  Professor 
at  Aberdeen  and  then  at  Cambridge,  who  was  chiefly 
instrumental  in  introducing  advanced  critical  opinions 
among  English  readers.  Dr.  Driver's  Introduction  to 
the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament  has  contributed 
still  further  to  spread  these  views,  and  give  them  that 
measure  of  popularity  to  which  they  have  attained.  Yet 
conservative  views  have  not  lacked  stanch  defenders,  as 
in  "  Isaiah  One  and  his  Book  One,"  by  Principal  Douglas 
of  Glasgow,  and  "  Lex  Mosaica,"  edited  by  Dr.  Valpy 
French,  with  nearly  a  score  of  able  collaborators. 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE 
OLD  TESTAMENT 

Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  in  the  widest 
sense  of  the  term  would  include  whatever  is  preliminary 
or  auxiliary  to  the  exegetical  study  and  correct  under- 
standing of  this  portion  of  the  sacred  volume.  But  tho 
subjects  which  would  thus  be  embraced  within  it  are 
too  numerous  and  of  too  heterogeneous  a  character  to 
be  profitably  pursued  together,  or  to  be  classed  under  a 
single  name.  It  is  accordingly  in  ordinary  usage  re- 
stricted to  a  definite  range  of  subjects,  viz. :  those  which 
concern  the  literary  history  and  criticism  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Other  branches  important  to  the  interpre- 
ter, such  as  Biblical  Geography,  Antiquities,  and  Nat- 
ural History,  Apologetics,  and  Hermeneutics  can  best 
be  treated  separately. 

Introduction,  in  the  limited  and  technical  sense  already 
explained,  is  divided  into  General  and  Special.  General 
Introduction  has  to  do  with  those  topics  which  concern 
the  entire  volume  considered  as  a  whole  ;  Special  Intro- 
duction with  those  which  relate  to  its  several  parts,  or 
to  the  individual  books  of  which  it  consists,  such  as 
the  questions  of  date,  authorship,  integrity  or  freedom 
from  adulteration,  the  character  of  the  composition, 
etc. 

General  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  which  is 
the  subject  of  the  present  volume,  is  an  inquiry  into 

I.  The  Collection  and  Extent  of  the  Canon. 

II.  The  History  and  Criticism  of  the  Text. 

The  history  of  the  text  must  be  traced  both  in  respect 

7 


8  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

to  its  external   form  and   its   internal   substance.     In 
studying  the  former  it  is  necessary  to  consider 

1.  The  original  form  of  the  text,  or  the  Languages  in 
which  it  was  written. 

2.  The  mode  of  its  transmission,  viz.,  by  Manuscripts. 

3.  The  additional  forms  in  which  it  exists,  viz., 
Ancient  Versions. 

This  must  be  followed  by  an  examination  into 

4.  The  internal  history  of  the  substance  of  the  text 
and  its  present  condition. 

The  way  is  now  prepared  for 

5.  The  Criticism  of  the  text,  or  a  consideration  of 
the  means  available  for  the  detection  and  correction  of 
any  errors  which  may  have  crept  into  it,  the  proper 
mode  of  their  application  and  the  result  accomplished 
by  them. 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 


THE  CANON 

The  Old  Testament  consists  of  a  number  of  separate 
books  or  treatises,  which  were  written  by  different 
authors  at  various  periods  of  time.  The  questions  nat- 
urally arise,  Why  have  they  all  been  united  thus  in  one 
volume  ?  When  and  how  did  this  take  place  ?  Are  all 
that  it  contains  rightfully  included  in  it  ?  Does  it  con- 
tain all  the  books  that  properly  belong  to  it  ? 

This  collection  of  books  is  naturally  called  the  Canon 
of  the  Old  Testament.  This  term  is  derived  from  the 
Greek  word  Kavcav,  which  originally  denoted  "  any 
straight  rod,"  whence  it  was  applied  to  a  rod  used  in 
measuring,  as  a  carpenter's  rule  ;  and  thence  metaphori- 
cally to  any  rule  whatever,  "anything  that  serves  to  reg- 
ulate or  determine  other  things,"  as  the  rules  or  canons 
of  grammar  or  of  rhetoric ;  and  the  best  Greek  writers 
were  by  the  Alexandrian  grammarians  called  "  canons," 
as  being  models  or  standards  of  literary  excellence.1  It 
occurs  in  two  passages  in  the  New  Testament  (Gal.  vi. 
16;  2Cor.  x.  13-16),  in  the  sense  of  rule  or  measure.  In 
the  writings  of  the  Christian  Fathers  the  expressions 
"the  canon  of  the  church,"  "the  canon  of  the  truth," 
"  the  canon  of  the  faith,"  are  used  to  denote  the  body  of 

1  Liddell  and  Scott's  Greek  Lexicon,  s.v. 
9 


10  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

Christian  doctrine  as  forming  the  recognized  rule  of 
fo  1  ie£  In  like  manner  "  the  canon  of  Scripture,"  or  "  the 
canonical  Scriptures,"  became  the  accepted  designation 
of  that  body  of  writings  which  constitutes  the  inspired 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.1  The  assertion  of  Semler, 
Eichhorn,  and  others,  that  "  canon  "  simply  means  list 
in  this  connection,  and  that  canonical  or  canonized  books 
denotes  the  list  of  books  sanctioned  by  the  Church  to 
be  read  in  public  worship,  overlooks  the  primary  and 
proper  signification  of  the  term. 

1  The  history  and  usage  of  this  word  is  very  carefully  traced  by  K. 
A.  Credner.     Zur  Geschichte  des  Kanons,  pp.  1-68. 


II 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  BIBLE  IN  EEGARD  TO  THE 
FORMATION  OF  THE  CANON 

While  the  Bible  does  not  profess  to  give  a  complete 
history  of  the  formation  of  the  Canon,  it  contains  impor- 
tant statements  concerning  it,  which  must  have  their 
place  in  any  reliable  account  of  the  matter ;  otherwise 
all  will  be  left  to  vague  conjecture  and  arbitrary  theoriz- 
ing. Express  provision  is  said  to  have  been  made  both 
for  the  careful  custody  of  the  first  completed  portion  of 
the  sacred  canon,  and  for  making  the  people  acquainted 
with  its  contents.  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Moses 
had  made  an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this  law  in  a 
book,  until  they  were  finished,  that  Moses  commanded 
the  Levites,  who  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jeho- 
vah, saying,  Take  this  book  of  the  law,  and  put  it  by  the 
side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah  your  God, 
that  it  may  be  there  for  a  witness  against  thee  "  (Deut. 
xxxi.  24-26).  It  was  thus  placed  in  the  charge  of  the 
priests  to  be  kept  by  them  along  side  of  the  most  sacred 
vessel  of  the  sanctuary,  and  in  its  innermost  and  holiest 
apartment.  This  was  in  accordance  with  the  usage  of 
the  principal  nations  of  antiquity.  The  Romans,  Greeks, 
Phoenicians,  Babylonians,  and  Egyptians  had  their 
sacred  writings,  which  were  jealously  preserved  in 
their  temples,  and  entrusted  to  the  care  of  officials  spe- 
cially designated  for  the  purpose.  Moses  also  com- 
manded the  priests  and  elders  of  the  people  "  At  the 
end  of  every  seven  years,  in  the  set  time  of  the  year  of 

11 


12  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

release,  in  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  when  all  Israel  is 
come  to  appear  before  Jehovah  thy  God  in  the  place 
which  he  shall  choose,  thou  shalt  read  this  law  before  all 
Israel  in  their  hearing.  Assemble  the  people,  the  men 
and  the  women  and  the  little  ones,  and  thy  stranger  that 
is  within  thy  gates,  that  they  may  hear,  and  that  they 
may  learn,  and  fear  Jehovah  your  God,  and  observe  to 
do  all  the  words  of  this  law ;  and  that  their  children, 
which  have  not  known,  may  hear,  and  learn  to  fear  Jeho- 
vah your  God,  as  long  as  ye  live  in  the  land  whither  ye 
go  over  Jordan  to  possess  it  "  (Deut.  xxxi.  10-loj.  And 
it  was  still  further  enjoined  that  the  future  king  should 
"  write  him  a  copy  of  this  law  in  a  book,  out  of  that 
which  is  before  the  priests  the  Levites  ;  and  it  shall  be 
with  him,  and  he  shall  read  therein  all  the  days  of  his 
life ;  that  he  may  learn  to  fear  Jehovah  his  God,  to  keep 
all  the  words  of  this  law  and  these  statutes  to  do  them  " 
(Deut.  xvii.  18,  19).  And  the  following  direction  was 
given  to  Joshua,  the  immediate  successor  of  Moses  in 
the  leadership  of  the  people :  "This  book  of  the  law  shall 
not  depart  out  of  thy  mouth,  but  thou  shalt  meditate 
therein  day  and  night,  that  thou  mayest  observe  to  do 
according  to  all  that  is  written  therein  "  (Josh,  i.  8). 

According  to  the  uniform  testimony  of  all  the  sacred 
historians,  the  law  of  Moses,  thus  carefully  guarded  and 
made  obligatory  upon  the  people  and  their  rulers,  was 
ever  after  regarded  as  canonical  and  divinely  authorita- 
tive, and  that  even  in  the  most  degenerate  times.  The 
punctilious  obedience  rendered  to  it  by  Joshua  is  re- 
peatedly noticed  in  the  course  of  his  life  {e.g.,  Josh.  xi. 
15).  Canaanit.s  were  left  in  the  land  to  prove  Israel 
"  whether  they  would  hearken  unto  the  commandments 
of  Jehovah,  which  be  commanded  their  fathers  by  the 
hand  of  Moses"  (Judg.  iii.  4).  Saul  forfeited  his  king- 
dom by  failing  to  comply  with  a  requirement  of  the  law, 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE   BIBLE  13 

which  Samuel  had  charged  him  to  execute  (1  Sam.  xv.). 
David  charged  Solomon  to  obey  the  law  of  Moses  (1 
Kin.  ii.  3).  David  is  repeatedly  commended  for  keep- 
ing the  law  (ljun.  iii  14,  ix.  4,  xi.  34,  38).  Solomon's 
compliance  with  the  law  of  Moses  in  the  worship  insti- 
tuted in  the  temple  is  noted  (2  Chron.  viii.  13);  and  he 
impressed  upon  the  people  their  obligation  to  obey  it 
(1  Kin.  viii.  56-58,  61).  The  prophet  Ahijah  denounced 
Jeroboam  for  his  disobedience  to  the  commandments  of 
Jehovah  (1  Kin.  xiv.  7-16).  King  Asa  commanded  the 
people  tolieep  the  law  (2  Chron.  xiv.  4).  Jehoshaphat 
sent  a  deputation  throughout  all  the  cities  of  Judah  to 
teach  the  people  the  book  of  the  law  (2  Chron.  xvii.  9). 
The  law  of  Moses  was  observed  under  Joash  (2  Chron. 
xxiii.  18,  xxiv.  6).  Amaziah  is  said  to  have  acted  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  law  of  Moses  (2  Kin.  xiv.  6 ;  2  Chron. 
xxv.  4).  Hezekiah  kept  the  commandments  which  Je- 
hovah commanded  Moses  (2  Kin.  xviii.  6  ;  2  Chron.  xxx. 
16).  Manasseh's  gross  transgressions  of  the  law  of 
Moses  were  denounced  by  the  prophets  (2  Kin.  xxi.  2- 
16).  Josiah  bound  the  people  in  solemn  covenant  to 
obey  the  law  of  Moses  (2  Kin.  xxiii.  3,  24,  25 ;  2  Chron. 
xxxiv.  14,  30-32).  The  exile  of  both  Israel  and  Judah 
is  attributed  to  their  infractions  of  the  law  of  Moses  (2 
Kin.  xvii.  7-23,  xviii.  12  ;  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  8  ;  Dan.  ix.  11, 
13  ;  Neh.  i.  7-9,  ix.  14-30).  The  first  colony  of  returned 
exiles  recognized  the  authority  of  the  law  of  Moses 
(Ezra  iii.  2,  vi.  16-18).  The  book  of  the  law  was  read 
and  expounded  to  the  people  by  Ezra  and  the  Levites 
(Neh.  viii.  1-8),  and  all  solemnly  pledged  themselves  to 
obey  it  (Nek  x.  28,  29,  xiii.  1-3). 

We  read  of  an  addition  being  made  to  the  book  of 
the  law  in  Josh.  xxiv.  26  :  "  And  Joshua  wrote  these 
words  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  God."  The  reference 
is  to  the  covenant  transaction  at  Shechem,  in  which 


14  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

the  people  are  reminded  of  what  Jehovah  had  done  for 
their  fathers  and  for  themselves,  and  they  in  turn 
pledged  to  him  their  faithful  service.  It  was  an  ap- 
propriate appendix  to  the  law,  recording  God's  gracious 
leadings  and  the  fulfilment  of  his  promises,  and  the 
engagement  of  the  people  to  obey  his  requirements. 
It  would  thus,  like  the  law  itself,  be  a  witness  against 
the  people  in  all  time  to  come,  if  they  forsook  the 
Lord. 

No  mention  is  made  of  any  subsequent  addition  to 
the  book  of  the  law,  but  a  fact  is  stated  in  1  Sam.  x. 
25,  which  is  of  some  consequence  in  this  connection. 
It  is  there  said  that  upon  the  selection  of  Saul  to 
be  king,  "Samuel  told  the  people  the  manner  of  the 
kingdom,"  i.e.,  he  expounded  to  them  the  regulations 
belonging  to  this  new  form  of  government,  the  rights 
and  duties  of  both  the  king  and  his  subjects,  "  and  wrote 
it  in  a  book  and  laid  it  up  before  Jehovah."  This  im- 
portant paper  relating  to  the  constitution  of  the  mon- 
archy in  Israel  was  deposited  for  safe-keeping  in  the 
sacred  tabernacle.  It  is  an  act  analogous  to  that  of 
Moses  in  making  a  similar  disposition  of  the  funda- 
mental constitution  of  Israel  as  the  people  of  God,  and 
so  far  confirmatory  of  it.  It  has  sometimes  been  in- 
ferred that  what  was  thus  done  with  a  paper  of  national 
importance,  must  a  fortiori  have  been  also  done  with 
each  fresh  addition  to  the  volume  of  God's  revelation ; 
and  as  a  complete  canon  of  Scripture  was  preserved  in 
the  second  temple,1  so  the  pre-exilic  sanctuary  must  have 
contained  a  standard  copy,  not  merely  of  the  law  of 
Moses,  but  of  the  whole  word  of  God,  as  far  as  it  was 
written.  There  is,  however,  no  historical  confirmation 
of  this  conjecture. 

1  Josephus,  Ant.,  iii.  1,  7,  v.  1,  17  ;  Jewish  War,  vii.  5,  5  ;  Life  of 
Josephus,  §  75. 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE  BIBLE  15 

When  the  temple  of  Solomon  was  built,  the  copy  of 
the  law  previously  kept  in  the  tabernacle  was  without 
doubt  transferred  to  it.  The  direction  which  placed  it 
in  the  custody  of  the  priests  was  still  in  force,  aud  the 
change  of  the  sanctuary  mado  no  alteration  in  the  sacred- 
ness  of  what  had  before  been  deposited  in  it.  This  is 
not  disproved,  as  has  been  alleged,1  by  1  Kin.  viii.  9 
and  the  parallel  passage  2  Chrou.  v.  10,  where  it  is 
declared  that  "  there  was  nothing  in  the  ark  "  when  it 
was  removed  to  the  temple  "  save  the  two  tables  of  stone, 
which  Moses  put  there  at  Horeb."  The  book  of  the 
law  was  put  (HS'a)  "  by  the  side  of  the  ark,"  not  within 
it.  Whether  it  was  still  put  by  the  side  of  the  ark,  af- 
ter this  was  deposited  in  the  temple  and  was  no  longer 
liable  to  be  transported  from  place  to  place,  cannot  be 
certainly  known.  But  that  it  was  kept  somewhere  in 
the  temple  appears  from  the  express  mention  of  it  in 
2  Kin.  xxii.  8.  It  is  there  stated  that  the  book  of  the 
law,  explicitly  identified  with  the  law  of  Moses  (xxiii. 
24,  25),  which  had  been  neglected  and  lost  sight  of  dur- 
ing the  ungodly  reigns  of  Manasseh  and  Anion,  was 
found  again  in  the  temple  in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  This 
was  but  a  short  time  before  the  destruction  of  the  city 
and  temple  by  Nebuchadnezzar  and  the  Babylonish 
captivity. 

In  all  probability  the  book  of  the  law  belonging  to 
the  temple  perished  when  the  temple  was  burned  (2 
Kin.  xxv.  9),  but  this  did  not  involve  the  destruction  of 
the  law  itself,  numerous  copies  of  which  must  have 
been  in  existence.  Every  king  was  required  to  have 
one  for  his  own  use  (Deut.  xvii.  18).  The  kings  of 
Judah,  who  are  commended  for  observing  the  law,  must 
have  possessed  it.  And  it  is  explicitly  stated  that  in 
the  coronation  of  king  Joash  Jehoiada,  the  high  priest, 
1  De  Wette's  Einleitung  (6th  edition),  §  14,  note/. 


16  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

gave  liini  "  the  crown  and  the  testimony."  The  test! 
inouy  can  only  mean  here  as  elsewhere  the  law  as  an 
authoritative  declaration  of  the  will  of  God  (Ps.  xix.  7, 
lxxviii.  5  ;  1  Kin.  ii.  3  ;  2  Kin.  xxiii.  3).  The  transaction 
described  was  the  formal  presentation  to  a  monarch, 
upon  his  accession  to  the  throne,  of  a  copy  of  the  law 
to  be  the  guide  of  his  reign.  The  judges  appointed  by 
Jehoshaphat  were  to  decide  questions  arising  under 
the  law  (2  Chron.  xix.  10),  and  must  have  been  able  to 
make  themselves  familiar  with  its  contents.  The  com- 
mission sent  by  him  to  visit  the  cities  of  Judah  took  a 
copy  of  the  law  with  them  (2  Chron.  xvii.  8,  9).  Solo- 
mon's urgent  admonition  to  the  people  to  walk  in  the 
statutes  of  Jehovah  and  to  keep  his  commandments  as- 
sumes their  knowledge  of  what  they  were  expected  to 
obey  (1  Kin.  viii.  61).  The  numerous  allusions  to  the 
law  in  all  the  subsequent  books  of  the  old  Testament 1 
indicate  familiarity  with  it  on  the  part  of  the  sacred 
writers.  Ps.  i.  4 2  describes  the  pious  b}7  saying  "  his 
delight  is  in  the  law  of  Jehovah,  aud  in  his  law  he  doth 
meditate  day  and  night."  The  admiration  and  affection 
for  the  law  expressed  in  such  passages  as  Ps.  xix.  7-11, 
xl.  7,  8,:?  and  the  exhortations  and  rebukes  of  the  proph- 
ets based  upon  the  requirements  of  the  law  imply  an 
acquaintance  with  it  such  as  could  only  be  produced  by 
its  diffusion  among  the  people.  In  the  persecution  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  various  persons  were  found  to  be 
in  possession  of  the  sacred  books ; 4  the  same  was 
doubtless  the  case  in  the  period  now  under  review. 
The  returning  exiles  governed  themselves  by  the  direc- 

1  Bee  my  Bigher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  pp.  52-58. 

*  This  Psalm  is  certainly  older  than  Jeremiah,  who  makes  use  of 
vcr.  ::  in  xvii.  8. 

•These  Psalmc 
of  which  there  is  no  good  reason  for  discrediting. 

4  1  Mace.  i.  56,  57.     Josephus,  Ant.,  xii.  5,  4. 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE  BIBLE  17 

tions  of  the  law  of  Moses  (Ezra  iii.  2,  vi.  18) ;  and  Ezra 
came  up  from  captivity  with  the  law  of  God  in  his 
hand  (vii.  14),  facts  which  sufficiently  prove  that  the  law 
had  neither  perished  nor  lost  its  authority. 

But  the  law  of  Moses  was  not  the  only  book  that  was 
invested  with  divine  authority.  It  will  be  sufficient 
here  to  note  the  fact  that  the  prophets  were  acknowl- 
edged messengers  of  Jehovah,  who  spoke  in  his  name 
and  at  his  bidding.  "What  they  uttered  was  the  word 
of  Jehovah  and  the  law  of  God  (Isa.  i.  10).  The  ca- 
lamities which  befel  Israel  and  Judah  are  attributed  to 
their  disobeying  the  law,  both  that  which  was  com- 
manded their  fathers  and  that  which  was  sent  to  them 
by  the  prophets  (2  Kin.  xvii.  13 ;  Neh.  ix.  29,  30 ;  Dan. 
ix.  5,  6 ;  Zech.  vii.  12).  The  word  of  Jehovah  by  the 
prophets  had,  of  course,  the  same  binding  authority 
when  written  as  when  orally  delivered.  Reference  is 
made  (Isa.  xxxiv.  16)  to  "the  book  of  Jehovah,"  in 
which  the  antecedent  prophecy  could  be  found  and  its 
exact  fulfilment  noted.  Daniel  ix.  2  speaks  of  "the 
books  "  in  which  a  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  then  on  the 
eve  of  fulfilment,  was  contained.  The  books  of  the 
prophets  from  the  time  that  they  were  first  written 
formed  a  component  part  of  the  revealed  will  of  God, 
and  belonged  of  necessity  to  the  canonical  Scriptures. 

To  this  extent,  then,  the  statements  of  the  Bible  are 
explicit  in  regard  to  the  formation  of  the  canon.  The 
law  written  by  Moses  was  by  his  direction  deposited 
in  the  sanctuary  as  the  divinely  obligatory  standard  of 
duty  for  Israel.  To  this  was  added  by  Joshua  a  solemn 
engagement  on  the  part  of  the  people  to  obey  it. 
Though  this  law  was  grossly  transgressed  at  times  by 
the  people  and  their  rulers,  its  supreme  authority  found 
repeated  and  emphatic  recognition,  and  was  attended 
by  divine  sanctions  culminating  in  the  overthrow  of 
2 


18  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

both  the  kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah.  The  book  of 
the  law,  which  was  kept  in  the  temple,  probably  per- 
ished when  the  latter  was  burned.  But  other  copies 
escaped,  and  the  law  was  still  in  the  hands  of  the  people 
at  the  close  of  the  exile.  No  intimation  is  given  that 
the  books  of  the  prophets  were  as  yet  united  with  the 
law  in  the  same  volume,  but  they  are  classed  with  it  as 
emanating  from  the  same  divine  source,  being  equally 
the  word  and  law  of  God,  with  a  like  claim  to  unf alter- 
ing  obedience. 


Ill 


THE    CRITICAL     THEORY    OF    THE    FORMATION    OF 
THE   CANON 

Eichhorn,1  who  has  been  called  the  Father  of  Higher 
Criticism,  did  not  hesitate  to  admit  that  the  laws  of 
Moses  were  deposited  by  his  direction  in  the  sanctuary 
by  the  side  of  the  ark,  as  a  divinely  given  and  authori- 
tative code  agreeably  to  the  statement  in  Deut.  xxxi.  25, 
26.  But  as  the  Pentateuch  was  more  and  more  discred- 
ited, and  belief  in  its  Mosaic  authorship  was  abandoned, 
later  critics  changed  their  attitude  accordingly.  The 
present  critical  position  in  this  matter  is  well  repre- 
sented by  Dillmann,2  and  may  be  briefly  stated  as  fol- 
lows :  If  Moses  had  written  the  Pentateuch  or  any  book 
of  laws  it  would,  as  a  matter  of  course,  have  been  thence- 
forward, in  the  proper  and  fullest  sense  of  the  word, 
canonical.  His  work,  however,  was  not  writing,  but 
acting,  establishing  institutions,  and  enkindling  a  new 
spiritual  life.  After  his  death,  attempts  were  made, 
from  time  to  time,  to  reduce  his  statutes  and  ordinances 
to  writing  for  public  or  private  use  without  producing  a 
body  of  laws  universally  accepted  as  authoritative,  for 
these  collections  were  liable  to  be  superseded  by  others 
more  complete  or  more  perspicuous.  The  book  of  the 
law  found  in  the  temple  in  the  reign  of  Josiah  (2  Kin. 
xxii.  8)  was  the  culmination  of  all  attempts  in  this  di- 
rection, embodying   both   what  was  gained  from    the 

1  Einleitung,  4th  edition,  p.  20. 

9  Jahrblicher  fiir  Deutsche  Theologie,  III.,  p.  432  ff. 
19 


20  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

experience  of  the  past  and  the  instructions  of  the  proph- 
ets with  special  adaptation  to  the  needs  of  the  present. 
This  was  at  once  accepted  by  both  king  and  people,  who 
solemnly  bound  themselves  to  obey  its  requirements. 
This  book  was  Deuteronomy,1  and  was  the  first  written 
law  having  canonical  authority.  During  the  exile  the 
Pentateuch  was  completed  in  its  present  form  by  the 
addition  of  the  priestly  laws  and  other  constituents. 
This  was  brought  to  Jerusalem  by  Ezra  when  he  came 
up  from  the  captivity,  and,  as  is  related  in  Neh.  viii.-x., 
was  read  before  the  assembled  people,  who  thereupon 
pledged  themselves  to  observe  all  that  it  commanded. 
By  this  transaction  the  Pentateuch,  which  was  thence- 
forth denominated  the  law,  or  the  law  of  Moses,  was 
made  canonical,  and  was  ever  after  accepted  as  su- 
premely authoritative.  This  is  not  only  the  first  divi- 
sion of  the  canon,  but  the  critics  insist  that  it  constituted 
the  first  canon,  and  that  it  is  all  that  was  regarded  as 
canonical  and  authoritative  in  the  time  of  Ezra.  He 
was  a  scribe  of  the  law  (Ezra  vii.  6, 12,  21) ;  he  prepared 
his  heart  to  seek  the  law  and  do  it  and  teach  it  to  Is- 
rael (ver.  10) ;  he  went  to  Jerusalem  with  the  law  of  God 
in  his  hand  (ver.  14) ;  he  bound  the  people  by  a  writ- 
ten engagement  (Neh.  ix.  38)  and  a  solemn  oath  (x.  29) 
to  obey  the  law  in  every  particular.  This  alone,  it  is 
urged,  constituted  at  that  time  the  publicly  sanctioned 
and  authoritative  divine  canon. 

The  books  of  the  prophets,  which  stand  next  in  the 

1  In  1858,  when  the  nrticle  was  written  from  which  the  preceding 
statement  lias  been  condensed,  Dillmann  still  held  what  was  at  that 
time  the  common  critical  opinion,  that  the  book  of  the  law  found  in 
the  temple  was  the  entire  Pentateuch,  which  had  recently  been  com- 
pleted by  the  addition  of  Deuteronomy.  The  critical  revolution  intro- 
duced by  Graf  and  Wellhausen  led  to  a  sudden  reversal  of  opinions  in 
this  respect,  and  it  is  now  claimed  that  the  completion  of  the  Penta- 
teuch was  the  work  of  priests  in  or  after  the  Babylonish  exile. 


THE  CRITICAL  THEORY  21 

order  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  are,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
critics,  not  only  a  second  division  of  the  canon,  but, 
historically  speaking,  were  a  second  canon  additional 
to  the  first,  and  incorporated  with  it  at  a  later  time. 
These  books,  it  is  said,  were  privately  circulated  at  irst, 
and  were  highly  esteemed  by  the  pious  who  possessed 
them.  But  they  had  no  public  official  authority  until 
they  were  formally  united  with  the  canon.  This  second 
collection  included  what  are  called  the  former  and  the 
latter  prophets.  The  former  prophets  are  the  four  his- 
torical books  according  to  the  original  enumeration, 
Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,  which  trace  the 
history  of  the  chosen  people  and  of  God's  dealings  with 
them  in  a  direct  line  from  the  death  of  Moses  to  the 
Babylonish  captivity.  These  follow  immediately  after 
the  Pentateuch,  as  they  continue  the  history  from  the 
point  at  which  it  closes.  They  are  called  the  former 
prophets  because  in  the  order  of  the  canon  they  precede 
the  strictly  prophetical  books,  which  are  accordingly 
termed  the  latter  prophets.  Of  these  there  are  like- 
wise four  in  the  original  enumeration,  viz.:  three  major 
prophets,  so  named  because  of  their  superior  size,  Isai- 
ah, Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel,  and  twelve  minor  prophets, 
whose  writings,  on  account  of  their  inferior  size,  are 
classed  together  as  one  book.  ^considerable  time  after 
the  formation  of  the  first  canon  by  Ezra  this  second 
canon  of  the  books  of  the  prophets  was  added  to  it,  so 
that  the  canon,  as  thus  constituted,  consisted  of  the  law 
and  the  prophets  ;  and  for  a  length  of  time  these  are  all 
that  were  reckoned  canonical. 

At  a  still  later  period,  however,  a  third  canon  was 
formed  of  other  books  which  were  thought  worthy  of 
being  associated  with  the  preceding  collections.  As 
these  were  of  a  somewhat  miscellaneous  character  and 
incapable  of  being  included  under  any  more  descriptive 


22  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

designation,  they  were  simply  called  by  the  general 
name  K'thubhim1  (ffOVl?)  writings,  or  by  the  Greek 
equivalent,  Hagiographa  (ayioypacfra),  sacred  writings* 
These  include  the  three  large  poetical  books,  Psalms 
(D^nn),  Proverbs  OblDtt),  and  Job  (ii*»),  from  whose 
initials  have  been  formed  the  memorial  word  ntttf 
truth;  then  the  five  small  books  called  Megilloth,  rolls, 
because  they  were  written  on  separate  rolls  for  syna- 
gogue use,  viz.:  the  Song  of  Solomon,  Ruth,  Lamenta- 
tions, Ecclesiastes,  Esther,  and,  finally,  the  three  books, 
as  originally  numbered,  Daniel,  Ezra  (including  Nehe- 
miah),  and  Chronicles.  Thus,  by  successive  steps  in 
the  course  of  time,  the  canon  reached  its  final  form,  em- 
bracing the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  K'thubhim,2  or 
Hagiographa. 

The  critics  acknowledge  that  there  is  no  historical 
testimony  to  the  existence  of  the  successive  stages, 
which  they  profess  to  find,  in  the  formation  of  the 
canon.3    All  the  testimony  in  the  case  is,  infact,  directly 

1  Pronounced  kethuvlm. 

2Bertholdt,  Einleitung,  p.  81,  gives  to  this  term  the  purely  fanciful 
definition,  "  books  lately  inserted  in  the  canon,"  on  the  false  assump- 
tion that  the  root  3113,  to  write,  has  the  sense  "to  inscribe  in  the 
canon."  K'thubhim,  as  the  technical  name  of  the  third  division  of  the 
canon,  is  not  to  be  derived,  as  some  have  claimed,  from  31  PIS,  it  is 
written,  the  common  formula  of  citation  from  the  Scriptures,  nor 
from  3SH3  in  the  sense  of  Scripture,  as  indicating  that  it  is  a  part  of 
the  sacred  volume.  It  is  properly  the  passive  participle  of  2113,  to 
write,  used  as  a  noun,  and  meaning  "  Writings,"  not  in  a  depreciating 
sense,  as  Dillmann  alleges  (Jahrb.  f.  D.  Theol.,  III.,  p.  430),  "  in  con- 
trast with  the  law  and  the  prophets  they  were  nothing  but  '  writings,' 
to  which  no  such  distinguishing  quality  as  Mosaic  or  prophetic  be- 
longs."  Their  association  with  the  law  and  the  prophets  in  the  canon 
sufficiently  shows  that  they  were  equally  regarded  as  the  inspired  word 
and  vested  with  divine  authority.  They  are  "writings"  by  way  of 
eminence,  ranking  above  mere  ordinary  human  productions.  Com- 
pare the  Greek  ypacpai  and  the  English  "  Bible." 

3  Wildeboer,  The  Origin  of  the  Canon,  p.  114:  "We  have  not  at 


THE   CRITICAL   THEORY  23 

opposed  to  it.  It  is  claimed,  however,  that  there  are 
other  proofs  sufficient  to  establish  it. 

1.  It  is  alleged  that  there  are  several  books  in  the 
canon  which  were  not  yet  in  existence  when  the  law  was 
made  canonical  by  Ezra,  nor  at  any  time  during  his  life. 
Ezra,  Chronicles,  and  Ecclesiastes  are  referred  by  crit- 
ics to  a  time  shortly  before  or  after  the  downfall  of  the 
Persian  Empire,  Esther  to  that  of  the  Greek  domina- 
tion, and  Daniel  and  several  of  the  Psalms  to  the  period 
of  the  Maccabees,  nearly  three  centuries  after  the  can- 
onization of  the  law. 

2.  It  is  argued  that  the  three-fold  division  of  the 
canon  of  itself  affords  a  clue  to  the  mode  of  its  forma- 
tion ;  it  is  of  such  a  nature  that  it  can  only  represent 
three  successive  stages  in  the  work  of  collection.  There 
is  no  consistent  principle  of  classification  such  as  we 
would  naturally  expect  to  find  if  the  canon  had  been 
arranged  at  any  one  time  by  any  man  or  body  of  men. 
There  are  books  in  the  third  division  which  are  homo- 
geneous with  those  in  the  second,  and  which,  if  prop- 
erly classed,  would  have  been  put  in  the  second  divi- 
sion. And  the  only  explanation  of  their  standing  where 
they  do  is  that  the  second  division  was  already  closed 
when  these  books  were  added,  so  that  there  was  no  re- 
source but  to  put  them  in  the  third  and  last  division, 
which  must,  accordingly,  have  been  formed  after  the 
second  division  was  complete.  Thus,  while  the  prin- 
cipal books  containing  the  post-Mosaic  history  of  the 
chosen  people  are  in  the  second  division  of  the  canon, 
viz.:    Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,    and   Kings,  there   are 

our  command  for  the  history  of  the  canonization  of  the  second  divi- 
sion of  the  Old  Testament  hooks,  any  such  historical  testimony  as  we 
have  for  those  of  the  law."  Page  136  :  "  Direct  historical  statements 
about  the  third  collection  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  are  want- 
ing, as  in  the  case  of  the  second." 


^4  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

other  books  continuing  this  same  history  and  of  like 
character  in  the  third  division,  such  as  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah,  and  particularly  Chronicles,  which  is  parallel  to 
the  history  in  Samuel  and  Kings,  covering,  to  a  con- 
siderable extent,  the  same  period,  extracted  in  part 
from  the  same  sources,  and  in  numerous  sections  or 
paragraphs  identical  in  language.  Further,  the  book  of 
Daniel,  instead  of  standing  in  the  second  division  with 
the  rest  of  the  books  of  the  prophets,  is  put  in  the  third 
division  along  with  books  of  quite  a  different  descrip- 
tion. It  is  claimed  that  the  only  satisfactory  solution 
of  these  facts  is  that  these  books  only  found  admission 
to  the  canon  after  the  second  division,  with  which  they 
had  affinity,  was  already  regarded  as  complete  and  in- 
capable of  being  reopened.  They  were,  accordingly, 
put  at  the  end  of  the  third,  which  was  the  only  division 
then  remaining  open. 

3.  The  Samaritans  recognize  the  canonicity  of  the 
Pentateuch,  but  of  no  other  part  of  the  Old  Testament. 
From  this  it  is  inferred  that  their  reception  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch dates  from  a  time  when  the  law  of  Moses  was  all 
that  was  canonical  with  the  Jews  ;  and  that  the  subse- 
quent hostility  between  them  and  the  Samaritans  has 
prevented  the  latter  from  accepting  the  additions  after- 
ward made  to  the  canon. 

4.  The  synagogue  lessons  were,  in  the  first  instance, 
taken  exclusively  from  the  law ;  afterward,  lessons  from 
the  prophets  were  read  in  conjunction  with  it.  The 
K'thubhim  are  used  only  on  special  occasions,  and  not 
in  the  regular  sabbath  reading  of  the  Scriptures.  This 
is  best  explained  by  assuming  that  the  law  alone  was 
canonical  at  first,  that  the  prophets  were  next  added, 
and  the  K'thubhim  last  of  all. 

5.  The  term  law  is  sometimes  used,  both  in  Jewish 
writings  and  in  the  New  Testament  in  a  comprehensive 


THE   CRITICAL  THEORY  25 

sense,  embracing  the  entire  Old  Testament.  At  other 
times  the  law  and  the  prophets  are  spoken  of  either  as 
the  principal  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  or  as  compre- 
hending the  whole.  This  is  again  regarded  as  a  remi- 
niscence of  the  time  when  first  the  law,  and  afterward 
the  law  and  the  prophets,  constituted  the  entire  canon, 
so  that  it  became  natural  to  use  these  names  to  signify 
the  whole  revealed  word  of  God. 

6.  There  are  said  to  be  indications  in  the  order  of 
the  books  in  both  the  second  and  third  divisions  of  the 
canon  that  these  were  formed  gradually  in  the  course 
of  time  and  not  by  a  single  act. 

7.  The  canonicity  of  certain  books,  particularly  the 
Song  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Esther,  was  long 
disputed  among  the  Jews,  and  the  question  was  not  fi- 
nally decided  in  their  favor  until  the  council  at  Jamnia, 
about  a.d.  90,  or,  as  some  have  maintained,  even  later. 
The  canon,  in  its  present  form  and  compass,  could  not, 
it  is  said,  have  been  definitely  fixed  until  then. 


IV 

THE  DETEKMINING  PKINCIPLE  IN  THE  FOKMATION 
OF  THE  CANON 

The  critical  theory  of  the  formation  of  the  canon 
rests  upon  a  false  notion  regarding  the  real  character 
of  the  canon  and  the  determining  principle  in  its  col- 
lection. The  fundamental  error  which  underlies  all  the 
arguments  of  the  critics  on  this  subject,  and  vitiates 
their  conclusion,  is  the  assumption  that  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  were  not  written  with  the  design  of 
being  held  sacred  and  divinely  authoritative ;  but  in  the 
course  of  time  they  came  to  be  treated  with  a  venera- 
tion, which  was  not  at  first  accorded  to  them.  This  is 
explicitly  avowed  by  Ewald i1  "It  lies  in  the  original 
nature  of  all  sacred  writings  that  they  become  sacred 
without  intending  it,  and  without  in  human  fashion  being 
planned  to  become  so.  .  .  .  When  the  first  active 
life  ceases,  and  men  have  to  look  back  upon  it  as  the 
model,  conform  their  lives  to  its  regulations  and  pre- 
scriptions, repeat  its  songs,  and  carefully  consider  its 
whole  history,  then  they  look  about  eagerly  for  the  best 
writings  which  can  be  serviceable  in  this  respect ;  and 
for  the  most  part  these  have  already  imperceptibly  by 
their  own  merit  separated  themselves  from  the  less  suit- 
able, have  already  been  gathered  piecemeal,  and  it  only 
requires  some  superior  oversight  to  combine  them  in  an 
enduring  manner,  and  consecrate  them  more  definitely 
for  their  present  purpose.     In  respect  to  a  few  of  the 

1  Jahrbiicher  der  Biblischen  Wissenschaft,  VII.,  pp.  77,  78. 
26 


THE   DETERMINING   PRINCIPLE  27 

less  necessary  there  may  for  a  time  be  uncertainty  and 
strife;  but  the  need  of  the  time  and  their  own  intrinsic 
value  will  long  since  have  decided  in  respect  to  the 
principal  books.  And  so  what  was  not  itself  intended 
to  be  sacred,  nevertheless  becomes  sacred  as  the  vehicle 
of  sacred  truths  and  spiritual  forces." 

To  the  same  purport  Dillmann  :  *  "  For  a  certain  class 
of  theologians  the  several  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
were  from  the  first  written  with  the  view  of  being  re- 
vered and  used  by  the  church  and  handed  down  to 
future  generations  as  sacred ;  the  canon  was  being 
formed  and  enlarged  by  each  new  book  that  was  added 
in  the  course  of  centuries ;  so  soon  as  the  last  book  of 
this  sort  had  appeared,  the  canon  was  completed,  and  it 
was  now  only  necessary  to  collect  these  books  which 
had  appeared  one  after  another,  combine  them  into  one 
whole,  and  bring  them  into  the  fine  order  in  which  they 
now  lie  before  us.  This  office  was  performed  by  some 
public  person  or  authority  qualified  for  the  same  by 
a  special  divine  illumination.  This  conception  of  the 
course  of  the  matter  is,  to  be  sure,  very  simple,  and  in- 
ferred with  great  logical  exactness  from  certain  precon- 
ceived dogmatical  ideas,  but  it  is  unhistorical  and  there- 
fore untrue.  How  the  canon  was  formed  can  only  be 
ascertained  in  a  historical  way.  And  history  knows 
nothing  of  the  individual  books  having  been  designed 
to  be  sacred  from  their  origin  ;  it  also  knows  nothing  of 
an  authority  by  wThich,  or  of  a  point  of  time  at  which, 
all  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  were  at  once  united 
and  published  as  a  collection  of  sacred  writings  forever 
closed.  On  the  contrary,  all  that  has  hitherto  been  :i>- 
certained  and  laboriously  enough  investigated  respect- 
ing the  origin  of  the  books  and  the  transmission  of  their 
text  forbids  us  to  believe  that  these  writings  were  from 
1  Jahrb.  D.  Theol.,  III.,  p.  420. 


28  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

the  first  regarded  sacred  and  inviolable,  as  they  were  in 
tho  opinion  of  later  generations.  A  historical  survey 
of  these  relations  shows  that  these  books  bore  indeed  in 
themselves  from  the  first  those  characteristics,  on  ac- 
count of  which  they  were  subsequently  admitted  into 
the  sacred  collection,  but  yet  always  had  first  to  pass 
through  a  shorter  or  longer  period  of  verification,  and 
make  trial  of  the  divine  power  resident  within  them 
upon  the  hearts  of  the  church  before  they  were  out- 
wardly and  formally  acknowledged  by  it  as  divine 
books." 

If  now  in  the  opinion  of  the  critics  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  were  written  with  no  intention  of  their 
being  held  sacred,  and  they  were  not  in  actual  fact  so 
regarded  at  first,  what  is  the  source  of  the  sacredness 
which  was  afterward  attached  to  them  ?  How  did  they 
come  to  be  regarded  with  that  veneration  which  dis- 
tinguished them  from  all  other  books,  and  led  to  their 
being  formed  into  a  sacred  canon?  In  other  words, 
what  was  the  guiding  principle  in  the  formation  of  the 
canon  ?  To  this  question  different  answers  have  been 
given. 

Some  have  held  with  Eichhorn  l  that  the  canon  was 
simply  a  collection  of  the  early  national  literature.  All 
books  written  before  a  certain  date  were  highly  prized 
because  of  their  antiquity,  and  regarded  with  a  venera- 
tion which  was  not  felt  for  more  recent  productions. 
And  as  the  gathering  up  of  ancient  writings  would  be  a 

1  Einleitung,  §  5 :  "  Soon  after  the  end  of  the  Babylonish  exile 
.  .  .  and  in  order  to  give  to  the  newly  built  second  temple  all  the 
advantages  of  the  first,  a  library  of  its  own  was  founded  in  it  of  the 
remains  of  Hebrew  literature,  which  we  commonly  call  the  Old  Testa- 
ment." Allgem.  Bibliothek  d.  bibl.  Litteratur,  IV.,  p.  254 :  "  Evi- 
dently everything  was  collected,  which  they  possessed  from  the  times 
before  Artaxerxes,  or  which  it  was  believed  must  be  referred  to  so 
high  an  antiquity." 


THE  DETERMINING  PRINCIPLE  29 

slow  and  laborious  process,  and  a  prolonged  search 
would  be  necessary  and  considerable  time  must  elapse 
before  it  could  be  certified  that  the  collection  was  com- 
plete, and  no  more  books  remained  to  be  discovered,  it 
is  contended  that  the  canon  could  not  have  been  gath- 
ered at  once,  but  must  have  been  the  work  of  time.  All 
this  is,  however,  palpably  tit  variance  with  the  fact  that 
the  books  of  Chronicles  make  mention  of  several  writ- 
ings then  extant,  to  which  readers  arc  referred  for 
further  information,  and  which  must,  therefore,  have 
been  of  earlier  date  than  Chronicles ;  yet  this  latter  war; 
admitted  to  the  canon,  while  the  former  were  not. 

Others  have  maintained  with  Hitzig l  that  the  de- 
termining feature  was  the  language  in  which  the  books 
were  written.  Those  in  the  sacred  Hebrew  tongue  were 
accounted  sacred,  those  in  Greek  were  not.  But  this  is 
disproved  by  the  same  argument  as  the  preceding.  The 
books  referred  to  in  Chronicles  as  historical  authorities 
were  of  course  in  Hebrew,  yet  were  not  admitted  to  tho 
canon.  And  some  of  the  apocryphal  books,  which  never 
had  a  place  in  the  canon,  were  written  in  Hebrew.  This 
was  the  case  with  Ecclesiasticus,  the  prologue  to  which 
speaks  of  its  having  been  translated  out  of  Hebrew  into 
Greek,  and  so  far  from  the  Hebrew  original  having  been 
lost  at  the  time  of  the  collection  of  the  canon,  a  frag 
ment  of  it  is  still  in  existence.  Tobit  also  and  1  Mac- 
cabees, according  to  Jerome,  were  written  in  Hebrew,  and 

1  Die  Psalraen,  1836,  II.,  p.  118  :  "  All  Hebrew  books  originating  in 
the  time  before  Christ  are  canonical,  all  canonical  books  are  Hebrew, 
while  all  written  in  Greek  are  reckoned  as  belonging  to  the  apocrypha. 
.  .  .  Greek  books  were  excluded  from  the  collection  oi  national 
writings  ;  no  matter  Avhether  they  had  never  existed  in  a  Hebn  w 
original,  or  this  was  no  longer  extant."  Thus  he  insists  that  the  He 
brew  originals  of  Ecclesiasticus  and  Baruch  had  already  hern  lost 
when  the  canon  was  collected,  and  they  were  then  only  extant  in  a 
Greek  translation 


30  GENEKAL  INTRODUCTION 

he  says  that  he  had  seen  the  Hebrew  originals.  As 
Dillmann1  truly  says,  "Wherever  and  however  the  al- 
leged  point  of  time  may  be  fixed  from  the  days  of  Ezra 
down  to  those  of  Josephus,  we  always  find,  besides  those 
which  became  canonical,  other  books  written  in  the 
Bacred  tongue  still  extant,  which  did  not  come  into  the 
canon,  and  which  were  not  then  lost,  but  subsequently 
came  to  be  lost  after  the  final  and  complete  close  of  the 
canon,  and  for  the  reason  that  they  had  not  been  ad- 
mitted to  it." 

But  their  religious  character  is  so  prominent  a  feature 
of  these  writings,  and  enters  so  essentially  into  the  ex- 
alted position  assigned  to  them  and  the  profound  ven- 
eration which  has  been  felt  for  them,  that  the  great 
majority  of  critics  have  confessed  that  this  must  be 
taken  into  the  account  in  estimating  the  Old  Testament ; 
and  that  it  can  neither  be  regarded  as  a  mere  collection 
of  ancient  literature  nor  of  writings  in  the  sacred  He- 
brew tongue.  The  measure  of  influence  assigned  to 
this  pervading  characteristic  of  the  sacred  writings  va- 
ries with  the  spirit  of  the  individual  critic  all  the  way 
from  the  shallow  suggestion  of  Corrodi  2  that  they  con- 

1  Ubi  supra,  p.  422. 

2  The  author  of  the  Versuch  einer  Beleuchtung  der  Geschichte  des 
Jiidischen  und  Christlichen  Bibelkanons,  published  anonymously  in 
1792.  G.  L.  Bauer,  Einleitung,  3d  edition,  page  33,  claims  that 
there  is  no  real  difference  in  the  various  conceptions  of  the  canon. 
"The  common  opinion  is  :  All  the  religious  writings  inspired  of  God. 
Eichhorn  says :  All  the  fragments  of  Hebrew  literature.  Corrodi : 
Only  such  writings  as  concerned  national  religion  or  history,  and  the 
criterion  of  divinity  and  inspiration  was  introduced  later  from  the 
time  of  Sirach  onward.  In  our  opinion,  all  these  views  may  be  united. 
All  the  fragments  of  the  ancient  Hebrew  literature  were  collected,  for 
almost  all  had  a  religious  form  or  concerned  sacred  history.  And  that 
these  books  were  written  by  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  the  old 
world,  according  to  their  notions,  hud  little  doubt,  since  they  even  al- 
lowed  that  a  goldsmith  and   emhroiderer  was  filled  with  the  Spirit 


TIIE  DETEPwMINING  PRINCIPLE  31 

cern  the  national  religion  to  the  far  more  reverent  atti- 
tude of  Ewald  and  Dillmann  in  the  extracts  before 
quoted,  who  appeal  to  their  normative  character  as  pre- 
senting the  loftiest  models  and  setting  forth  in  their 
purity  the  requirements  of  the  religion  of  Israel,  and 
their  spiritual  power  to  nurture  and  elevate  the  religious 
life ;  to  which  Kobertson  Smith  '  adds  that  all  the  books 
of  the  canon  were  in  full  accord  with  the  law  of  Moses. 
But  even  when  this  view  is  presented  in  its  highest  and 
best  form,  it  is  seriously  defective,  and  completely  in- 
verts the  order  of  cause  and  effect.  It  is  true,  as  the 
apostle  declares  (2  Tim.  iii.  16),  that  every  Scripture  is 
profitable  for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for 
instruction  which  is  in  righteousness,  that  the  man  of 
God  may  be  complete,  furnished  completely  unto  every 
good  work ;  but  it  is  because  it  is  inspired  of  God.  It 
is  not  the  religious  profit  derived  from  these  books 
which  led  to  their  admission  into  the  canon,  but  it  is 
their  being  inspired  of  God  to  guide  the  faith  and 
practice  of  the  church — in  other  words,  their  canonic- 
ity — which  makes  them  profitable  to  the  religions 
life.  They  were  included  in  the  canon  because  they 
were  written  by  men  inspired  of  God  for  this  very 
purpose. 

In  order  to  ascertain  the  true  import  of  the  canoniza- 

of  God."  To  the  same  purport  De  Wette,  Einleitung,  6th  edition, 
section  16:  "The  two  assumptions  that  the  Old  Testament  was  in- 
tended to  constitute  a  collection  of  national  writings  and  that  it  was  a 
collection  of  sacred  writings,  are  really  one  in  view  of  the  contents  of 
most  of  the  Old  Testament  hooks  and  the  theocratic  spirit  of  Jewish 
antiquity;  for  the  truly  national  was  also  religious.  In  either  case 
the  authors  were  regarded  as  inspired,  and  their  writings  as  the  fruit  of 
sacred  inspiration." 

1  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  2d  edition,  page  181  : 
"  The  ultimate  criterion  hy  which  every  book  was  subjected  lay  in  the 
supreme  standard  of  the  law.  Nothing  was  holy  which  did  not  agree 
with  the  teaching  of  the  Pentateuch." 


32  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

tion  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  must  examine  (1)  the 
claims  which  its  several  books  make  for  themselves,  and 
(2)  the  esteem  in  which  they  were  held  by  the  people. 
In  Ex.  xx.  2,  3,  Jehovah  announces  himself  to  Israel 
as  their  God,  who  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt,  and  bids  them  have  no  other  god  besides  himself. 
And  the  people  solemnly  engage  to  obey  all  his  com- 
mands (xix.  8),  and  enter  into  formal  covenant  with  him 
as  his  people  (xxiv.  7,  8).  At  every  subsequent  period 
of  their  history  the  people  are  reminded  of  their  obli- 
gation to  Jehovah  for  delivering  them  from  the  bond- 
age of  Egypt,  and  their  engagement  to  be  his  people 
and  to  serve  him  as  their  God  (Josh.  xxiv.  16-18 ;  Judg. 
vi.  8-10;  1  Sam.  xii.  6,  7 ;  2  Sam.  vii.  23,  24;  Hos.  xii. 
9,  xiii.  4 ;  Am.  ii.  10,  iii.  2).  Nothing  is  plainer  on  the 
very  surface  of  the  Old  Testament  from  first  to  last  than 
the  recognized  fact  that  Jehovah  was  the  God  of  Israel 
and  that  Israel  was  his  people.  Now  the  law  of  Moses 
claims  in  all  its  parts  to  be  the  law  of  Jehovah  given 
through  Moses.  The  entire  legislation  of  the  Penta- 
teuch asserts  this  for  itself  in  the  most  positive  way  and 
in  the  most  unambiguous  terms.  The  prophets  through- 
out claim  to  speak  in  the  name  of  Jehovah  and  by  his 
authority,  and  to  declare  his  will.  What  they  utter  is 
affirmed  to  be  the  word  of  Jehovah ;  their  standing  for- 
mula is,  Thus  saith  Jehovah.  To  yield  to  their  require- 
ments is  to  obey  Jehovah;  to  refuse  submission  to 
them  is  to  offend  against  Jehovah.  Jehovah  is  further 
the  recognized  king  of  Israel.  He  guides  their  history, 
rewards  their  obedience,  punishes  their  transgression. 
The  historical  books  reveal  his  hand  in  every  turn  of 
their  affairs  ;  they  authoritatively  declare  his  will  and 
purposes,  as  they  are  manifested  in  his  providential 
dealings  with  them.  The  law,  the  prophetical  books 
and  the  historical  books  thus  alike  profess  to  give  an 


THE  DETERMINING  PRINCIPLE  33 

authoritative  declaration  of  the  will  of  Jehovah,  the  sov- 
ereign God  of  Israel. 

The  reception  of  these  books  into  the  canon  was  not 
merely  the  acknowledgment  of  their  superior  excellence 
and  their  uplifting  spiritual  power,  but  a  recognition 
of  the  rightfulness  of  their  claim  to  be  a  revelation  of 
the  will  of  God.  We  have  already  seen  (p.  12)  that 
according  to  the  uniform  testimony  of  all  the  sacred 
historians,  the  law  of  Moses  was  regarded  as  divinely 
obligatory  upon  Israel  at  every  period  of  their  history. 
Whatever  extent  of  meaning  be  given  to  the  expression, 
"  the  law  of  Moses,"  it  is  manifest  that  there  was  a 
body  of  law  attributed  to  him,  and  believed  to  be  from 
a  divine  source  which  the  people  and  their  rulers  were 
bound  to  obey,  and  upon  the  faithful  observance  of 
which  the  prosperity  of  the  nation  and  its  continued 
existence  were  dependent.  When  Josiah  and  all  the 
people  of  Judah  of  all  ranks  and  classes  bound  them- 
selves by  covenant  to  a  steadfast  adherence  to  the  book 
of  the  law  found  in  the  temple  in  all  its  requirements,  - 
this  was  not  the  first  sanction  given  to  a  law  which  had 
never  been  considered  obligatory  before,  but  the  recog- 
nition of  a  law  of  long  standing,  that  was  not  only  bind- 
ing upon  them,  but  had  been  equally  so  upon  their 
fathers,  who  had  incurred  serious  guilt  by  transgressing 
it  (2  Kin.  xxii.  13),  in  fact  the  very  law  of  Moses  (xxiii. 
25),  which  their  duty  to  Jehovah  required  them  to  keep. 
This  was  not  the  first  step  toward  the  formation  of  a 
canon,  but  bowing  to  an  authoritv  coeval  with  the  origin 
of  the  nation  itself. 

And  the  law  which  Ezra  read  to  the  assembled 
people,  and  which  by  a  written  and  sealed  engagement, 
ratified  by  an  oath  they  promised  to  observe,  was  not, 
in  the  intent  of  Ezra  or  of  the  people  according  to  the 
only  record  that  we  havo  of  the  transaction,  a  new  book 
3 


34  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

of  the  law  then  for  the  first  time  accepted  as  sacred  and 
made  canonical.  It  was  (Neh.  viii.  1)  the  book  of  the 
law  of  Moses  which  Jehovah  had  commanded  to  Israel 
(ix.  14,  x.  29),  God's  law  which  was  given  by  Moses  the 
servant  of  God,  the  trangression  of  which  by  former 
generations  had  been  the  cause  of  all  the  calamities 
which  had  befallen  them  (ix.  26,  29,  32-34). 

The  prophets  were  recognized  expounders  of  the  will 
of  Jehovah,  who  were  commissioned  by  him  to  deliv- 
er his  messages  to  the  people.  And,  as  we  have  seen 
(p.  17),  the  prophets  are  in  numerous  passages  associat- 
ed with  the  law,  as  together  constituting  the  divine  stand- 
ard obligatory  upon  the  people,  the  disregard  of  which 
brought  upon  them  accumulated  evils.  Later  prophets 
also  bear  abundant  testimony  to  the  divine  commission 
of  their  predecessors  by  general  statements,  as  Hos.  vi. 
5,  Jer.  vii.  25,  by  the  repetition  and  enforcement  of  their 
predictions,  by  citations  of  their  language,  or  by  evident 
allusions  to  them.  Thus  Ewald:1  "Even  such  old 
prophets  as  Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  Micah,  like  to  build 
upon  the  words  and  writings  of  older  true  prophets, 
borrow  many  a  passage  from  them,  and  many  a  striking 
clause,  and  refer  back  to  them  without  mentioning  them 
by  name.  Yet  in  Jeremiah's  time  appeal  was  made  by 
name  to  the  book  of  Micah,  a  hundred  years  before  (Jer. 
xxvi.  17,  18)."  Wildeboer 2  quotes  from  von  Orelli  with 
approval :  "To  judge  from  the  citations  of  older  proph- 
ets, in  younger  authors,  the  writings  of  an  Amos,  an 
Isaiah,  etc.,  were  regarded  in  a  certain  sense  as  holy 
scriptures,  as  the  word  of  God" ;  and  adds,  "  Of  course 
as  the  spoken  words  of  the  prophets  were  the  word  of 
God  ;  they  were  equally  so  when  committed  to  writing." 
It  is  evident  that  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  as  soon 

1  Jahrb.  d.  Bibl.  Wiss.,  VII.,  p.  74. 
8  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  123. 


THE   DETERMINING   PRINCIPLE  36 

as  tliey  were  issued,  would  have  precisely  the  same 
authority  as  their  discourses  orally  delivered,  and  would 
be  accepted  as  in  precisely  the  same  sense  the  word  of 
God.  No  formal  declaration  of  their  canonicity  was 
needed  to  give  them  sanction.  They  were  from  the  first 
not  only  "  eagerly  read  by  the  devout,"  but  believed  to 
!  >(3  divinely  obligatory ;  and  this  without  waiting  until 
there  were  no  more  living  prophets,  and  a  complete  col- 
lection could  be  made  of  all  their  writings.  Each  indi- 
vidual book  of  an  acknowledged  prophet  of  Jehovah,  or 
of  anyone  accredited  as  inspired  by  him  to  make  known 
his  will,  was  accepted  as  the  word  of  God  immediately 
upon  its  appearance.  It  had  its  own  independent  author-  - 
ity,  derived  from  the  source  from  which  it  came,  irre- 
spective of  its  being  united  in  a  collection  with  the 
other  books  of  the  same  character.  And  thus  the  canon 
gradually  grew,  as  such  books  were  produced  from  time 
to  time,  until  the  last  was  written,  when  consequently  - 
the  canon  was  complete. 

This  view  of  the  formation  of  the  canon  is  not,  as  Dill-  - 
mann  supposed,  a  theological  speculation,  but  a  neces- 
sary historical  deduction.  The  question  with  which  we 
are  at  present  concerned  is  not  as  to  the  reality  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  sacred  writers,  but  as  to  the  faith  of 
Israel  on  this  subject.  Those  books,  and  those  only,, 
were  accepted  as  the  divine  standards  of  their  faith 
and  regulative  of  their  conduct  which  were  written  for 
this  definite  purpose  '  by  those  whom  they  believed  to 

1  Books  written  by  inspired  men  with  a  different  design,  or  only  for 
some  temporary  purpose,  and  with  no  claim  to  divine  authority  or 
permanent  obligation,  could  not,  of  course,  be  placed  on  a  par  with 
their  professed  divine  communications.  Expressions  in  which  prophets 
simply  utter  their  own  thoughts  are  clearly  distinguished  from  what 
they  say  in  the  name  of  God  (1  Sam.  xvi.  6,  7 ;  2  Sam.  vii.  3,  4,  17). 
No  record  has  been  preserved  of  what  Solomon  spake  on  subjects  of 
natural  history  (1  Kin.  iv.  33).     Annals  of  the  kingdom,  if  written  by 


36  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

be  inspired  of  God.  It  was  this  which  made  them 
canonical.  The  spiritual  profit  found  in  them  corre- 
sponded with  and  confirmed  the  belief  in  their  heavenly- 
origin.  And  the  public  official  action,  which  further 
attested,  though  it  did  not  initiate,  their  canonicity,  fol- 
lowed in  the  wake  of  the  popular  recognition  of  their 
divine  authority.1 

prophets,  would  have  their  historical  value,  even  though  they  might 
not  he  in  any  sense  the  product  of  divine  inspiration.  The  same  may 
probahly  be  said  of  the  historical  sources  referred  to  in  the  books  of 
Chronicles  (IChron.  xxix.  29,  30;  2  Chron.  ix.  29,  xii.  15),  which  are 
no  longer  extant  for  the  reason,  doubtless,  that  they  were  not  intended 
to  form  part  of  the  permanent  rule  of  faith.  See  Alexander  on  the 
Canon,  pp.  84-93. 

1  u  When  the  Jewish  doctors  first  concerned  themselves  with  the  prep- 
aration of  an  authoritative  list  of  sacred  books,  most  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment books  had  already  established  themselves  in  the  hearts  of  the 
faithful  with  an  authority  that  could  neither  be  shaken  nor  confirmed 
by  the  decision  of  the  schools."  Robertson  Smith  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  Jewish  Church,  p.  163. 


THE  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON 

We  have  explicit  testimony  respecting  the  time  of 
completing  the  canon  from  the  Jewish  historian  Jo^ 
sephus,  who  was  born  at  Jerusalem,  a.d.  37,  of  priestly 
descent.  In  his  treatise  against  Apion,  an  Alexandrian 
grammarian,  hostile  to  the  Jews,  L,  8,  he  speaks  in  the 
following  manner  of  the  sacred  books:  "We  have  not 
tens  of  thousands  of  books,  discordant  and  conflicting, 
but  only  twenty-two,  containing  the  record  of  all  time, 
which  have  been  justly  believed  [to  be  divine  l].  And 
of  these,  five  are  the  books  of  Moses,  which  embrace  the 
laws  and  the  tradition  from  the  creation  of  man  until 
his  [Moses']  death.  This  period  is  a  little  short  of 
three  thousand  years.  From  the  death  of  Moses  to  the 
reign  of  Artaxerxes,  the  successor  of  Xerxes,  king  of 
Persia,  the  prophets  who  succeeded  Moses  wrote  what 
was  done  in  thirteen  books.  The  remaining  four  books 
embrace  hymns  to  God  and  counsels  for  men  for  the 
conduct  of  life.  From  Artaxerxes  until  our  time  every- 
thing has  been  recorded,  but  has  not  been  deemed 
worthy  of  like  credit  with  what  preceded,  because  the 
exact  succession  of  the  prophets  ceased.  But  what  faith 
we  have  placed  in  our  own  writings  is  evident  by  our 
conduct ;  for  though  so  long  a  time  has  now  passed,  no 

^ichhorn  (Repertorium  f.  Bib.  u.  Mori?.  Litt,  V.,  p.  254)  remarks, 
"  The  word  '  divine  '  was  not  in  the  old  editions  of  Josephus ;  it  has  in 
recent  times  been  inserted  from  Eusebius."  Later  editors  are  inclined 
to  expunge  it. 

37 


38  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

one  has  dared  either  to  add  anything  to  them,  or  to 
take  anything  from  them,  or  to  alter  anything  in  them. 
But  it  is  instinctive  in  all  Jews  at  once  from  their  very 
birth  to  regard  them  as  commands  of  God,  and  to  abide 
by  them,  and,  if  need  be,  willingly  to  die  for  them." 

According  to  Joseplms,  therefore,  the  period  in  which 
the  books  esteemed  sacred  by  the  Jews  were  written, 
extended  from  the  time  of  Moses  to  the  reign  of  Artax- 
erxes  I.  of  Persia ;  after  which  no  additions  of  any  sort 
were  made  to  the  canon.  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  the 
monarch  here  referred  to,  reigned  forty  years,  from  B.C. 
4G5  to  B.C.  425.  In  the  seventh  year  of  his  reign  Ezra 
came  up  to  Jerusalem  from  the  captivity  (Ezra  vii.  1,  8); 
and  in  the  twentieth  year  of  the  same  Nehemiah  followed 
him  (Neh.  ii.  1,  5,  6). 

Strenuous  efforts  have  been  made  to  discredit  this 
statement  of  Josephus,  but  without  good  reason.  It  has 
been  said  that  it  is  not  based  on  reliable  historical  in- 
formation, nor  the  general  belief  of  his  time,  but  is 
merely  a  private  opinion  of  his  own.  It  is  obvious, 
however,  that  this  cannot  be  the  case.  Josephus  was  a 
man  of  considerable  learning,  and  had  every  facility  for 
acquainting  himself  with  the  history  of  his  own  nation, 
upon  which  he  had  written  largely  in  his  "Antiquities." 
His  priestly  origin  afforded  him  special  opportunities 
for  becoming  familiar  with  the  religious  opinions  of  his 
countrymen.  He  is  here  arguing  with  a  scholar  of  no 
mean  pretensions,  which  would  naturally  make  him 
cautious  in  his  statements ;  and  he  gives  no  intimation 
that  what  he  here  says  is  simply  his  own  opinion.  It  is 
stated  as  a  certain  and  acknowledged  fact.  And  we 
have,  besides,  additional  evidence  that  this  was  the  cur- 
rent belief  of  his  contemporaries.  Ryle  gives  utterance 
to  the  common  sentiment  of  scholars,  when  he  says : l 
1  The  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  162-164. 


THE  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON       39 

"  We  must  remember  that  Josephus  writes  as  the  spokes- 
man of  his  people,  in  order  to  defend  the  accuracy  and 
sufficiency  of  their  Scriptures,  as  compared  with  the 
recent  and  contradictory  histories  by  Greek  writers.  In 
this  controversy  he  defends  the  judgment  of  his  people. 
He  does  not  merely  express  a  personal  opinion,  he 
claims  to  represent  his  countrymen.  ...  In  the 
first  century  a.d.  the  impression  prevailed  that  the  books 
of  the  canon  were  all  ancient,  that  none  were  more 
recent  than  Ahasuerus  (Artaxerxes),  and  that  all  had 
long  been  regarded  as  canonical." 

It  is  further  urged  that  Josephus  makes  the  mistake 
of  identifying  the  Artaxerxes  of  Ezra  and  Neheniiah 
with  Xerxes  ("  Antiq.,"  xi.  5, 1,  6),  and  the  Ahasuerus  of 
Esther  with  Artaxerxes  ("  Antiq.,"  xi.  6,  1),  whereas  the 
real  fact  is  the  reverse  of  this.  The  events  related  in  the 
book  of  Esther  took  place  in  the  reign  of  Xerxes,  and 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  lived  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes. 
It  is  hence  inferred  that  he  regarded  Esther  as  the  latest 
book  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  for  this  reason  makes 
the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  the  limit  of  the  canon  in  the 
passage  quoted  above.  But  it  is  evident  that  this  error 
on  the  part  of  Josephus  does  not  affect  the  correctness 
of  his  general  statement.  Whether  Esther  was  prior 
to  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  or  they  were  prior  to  Esther, 
one  or  the  other  lived  under  Artaxerxes,  and  after  his 
time  no  book  was  added  to  the  canon.  It  is  by  no  means 
certain,  however,  that  this  was  in  his  mind.  As  the 
saying  was  common  among  the  Jews  that  Malachi  was 
the  latest  prophet,1  it  is  more  probable  that  the  time  of 
closing  the  canon  was  fixed  by  the  date  of  his  ministry, 
particularly  as  the  reason  given  by  Josephus  himself  is 

^track,  in  Herzog-Plitt  Encycl.,  vii.,  p.  428,  note,  quotes  from 
the  Talmudic  treatise  Sanhedrin,  "  After  the  latter  prophets  llaggai, 
Zechariah,  and  Malachi,  the  Holy  Spirit  departed  from  Israel." 


40  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

because  then  the  exact  succession  of  the  prophets  ceased. 
As  the  continuous  line  of  the  prophets  terminated  then, 
no  inspired  book  could  be  written  afterward. 

It  does  not  invalidate  Josephus'  testimony  that  he 
finds  sporadic  instances  of  prophetic  power  at  a  later 
time,  such  as  he  attributes  to  John  Hyrcanus,1  who  be- 
came high  priest,  B.C.  135,  for  he  has  no  idea  of  placing 
him  on  a  par  with  the  continuous  line  of  prophets  who 
were  the  authors  of  the  sacred  books.  He  evidently 
regards  him  as  standing  on  a  much  lower  plane. 

The  most  serious  objection  to  the  truth  of  Josephus' 
statement,  however,  if  it  could  be  substantiated,  is  the 
allegation  that  there  are  books  in  the  Old  Testament 
which  were  not  written  until  long  after  the  time  of  Ar- 
taxerxes.  If  this  be  so,  of  course  it  must  be  acknowl- 
edged that  Josephus  was  mistaken.  This  allegation 
rests  upon  critical  conclusions  which  are  deduced  en- 
tirely from  certain  supposed  criteria  in  the  books  them- 
selves, but  have  no  external  historical  support,  and  are 
at  variance  with  what  has  been  the  generally  reputed 
origin  of  the  books  in  question.  The  testimony  of  Jo- 
sephus and  the  common  belief  of  the  age  in  which  he 
lived  create  a  strong  presumption  against  these  critical 
positions,  unless  some  very  clear  and  decisive  evidence 
can  be  adduced  in  their  favor.  As  Welte  2  truly  says, 
"The  rise  of  the  opinion  that  with  Malachi  the  Holy 
Spirit  departed  from  Israel  seems  incomprehensible,  if 
books  acknowledged  to  be  inspired  and  universally  re- 
garded as  sacred,  which  proceeded  from  a  later  time,  are 
found  in  the  sacred  collection." 

1  Antiq.,  xiii.  10,  7,  ct  He  was  esteemed  by  God  worthy  of  the  three 
greatest  privileges,  the  government  of  his  nation,  the  dignity  of  the 
high  y)riesthood,  and  prophecy,  for  God  was  with  him,  and  enabled 
him  to  know  futurities." 

8  Theologische  Quartalschrift,  1855,  p.  83. 


THE  COMPLETION   OF  THE  CANON  41 

It  will  not  be  possible  hero  to  enter  upon  a  full  dis- 
cussion of  tho  date  of  the  books  of  Chronicles,  Ezra, 

Neheiniak,  Ecclesiastes,  Esther,  and  Daniel,  which  the 
critics  contend  were  not  written  until  after  the  time  of 
Artaxerxes.  It  will  be  sufficicut  for  our  present  pur- 
pose to  examine  briefly  tho  grounds  upon  which  this 
contention  rests,  as  they  are  stated  by  Dr.  Driver  in  his 
"Literature  of  the  Old  Testament." 

Of  Chronicles  he  says,  p.  518 :  "The  only  positive 
clue  which  the  book  contains  as  to  the  date  at  which  it 
was  composed  is  the  genealogy  in  1  Chron.  iii.  17-24, 
which  (if  ver.  21  be  rightly  interpreted)  is  carried  down 
to  the  sixth  generation  after  Zerubbabel.  This  would 
imply  a  date  not  earlier  than  cir,  350  B.C.;  iii.  21,  is, 
however,  obscurely  expressed  ;  and  it  is  doubtful  if  the 
text  is  correct."  And  he  adds  in  a  note  that  if  the  ren- 
dering of  the  LXX.,  Pesh.,  Yulg.  be  adopted,  it  will 
bring  down  the  genealogy  to  the  eleventh  generation 
after  Zerubbabel. 

The  actual  fact  is  that  Zerubbabel's  descendants  are 
traced  in  iii.  19-2 la  for  two  generations  only,  viz.:  Zer- 
ubbabel, Hananiah,  Pelatiah.  There  are  then  added, 
in  a  disconnected  manner,  four  separate  families,  whose 
origin  and  relation  to  the  preceding  are  not  stated,  and 
one  of  these  families  is  traced  through  four  generations; 
but  there  is  no  intimation  whatever  that  this  family  or 
either  of  the  others  belonged  in  the  line  of  descent 
from  Zerubbabel.  They  were,  doubtless,  families  known 
at  the  time  who  belonged,  in  a  general  way,  among  the 
descendants  of  David,  which  is  the  subject  of  the  entire 
chapter.  But  their  particular  line  of  descent  is  not 
indicated.  That  by  gratuitously  assuming  them  to  be 
sprung  from  Zerubbabel  six  generations  can  be  counted, 
or  eleven  by  a  conjectural  alteration  of  the  text  in  tho 
manner  of  the  ancient  versions,  is  no  secure  basis  for 


42  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

the  conclusion  that  the  book  belongs  to  a  later  date 
than  has  always  hitherto  been  believed. 

Dr.  Driver  tells  us  that  "  more  conclusive  evidence  is 
afforded  by  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  which  cer- 
tainly belong  to  the  same  age,  and  are  commonly  as- 
sumed to  be  the  work  of  the  same  compiler."  As  we 
are  not  concerned  at  present  about  the  internal  consti- 
tution of  these  books,  but  simply  with  the  question 
whether  they  are  posterior  in  date  to  the  reign  of  Ar- 
taxerxes,  we  pass  over  the  alleged  "  indications  of  their 
compilatory  character,"  and  proceed  to  consider  the 
"  marks  of  their  having  been  compiled  in  an  age  long 
subsequent  to  that  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,"  p.  545. 
These  are  thus  stated  : 

a.  "  The  phrase  '  King  of  Persia  "  (Ezra  i.  1,  2,  8,  iii.  7, 
iv.  2,  3,  7,  24,  vii.  1)  ;  the  addition  would,  during  the 
period  of  the  Persian  supremacy,  be  at  once  unneces- 
sary and  contrary  to  contemporary  usage ;  the  expres- 
sion used  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  when  speaking  in 
their  own  person  (Ezra  vii.  27  f.,  viii.  1,  22,  25,  36 ;  Neh. 
i.  11,  ii.  1  ff.,  18  f.,  v.  4, 14,  vi.  7,  xiii.  6),  or  in  passages 
extracted  from  sources  written  under  the  Persian  rule 
(Ezra  iv.  8,  11,  17,  23,  v.  6  f.,  13  f.,  17,  vi.  1,  3,  13,  15, 
vii.  7,  11,  21 ;  Neh.  xi.  23,  24)  is  simply  <  the  king.'  "  In 
a  note  on  the  next  page  it  is  added,  "  Persia  was  absorbed 
and  lost  in  the  wider  empire  of  which  by  Cyrus'  con- 
quest of  Babylon  the  Achamenidse  became  the  heirs  ; 
hence  after  that  date  their  standing  official  title  is  not 
1  King  of  Persia,'  but  '  King  of  Babylon,'  or  more  com- 
monly the  King,  the  great  King,  King  of  kings,  King  of 
the  lands,  etc." 

But  (1)  the  assumption  that  the  Persian  monarchs  are 
in  the  book  of  Ezra  simply  called  "the  King  "  by  con- 
temporaries, and  that  the  phrase  "  King  of  Persia  "  in- 
dicates a  late  compiler,  will  not  account  for  the  facts  of 


THE   COMTLETION-   OF  THE    TANON  43 

the  case.  For  both  designations  occur  together  in  con- 
texts incapable  of  division ;  thus  "  Cyrus  the  king,"  i.  7, 
but  "King  of  Persia,"  vs.  1,  2,  8,  "Artaxerxes  the  king," 
vii.  7,  but  "  King  of  Persia,"  ver.  I.1 

(2)  If  i.  2  has  preserved  the  language  of  Cyrus'  edict, 
£ie  calls  himself  "  King  of  Persia,"  as  he  is  likewise  en- 
titled in  the  inscription  of  Nabuna'id,  the  last  king  of 
Babylon.  It  is  argued  that  its  "  Jewish  phraseology 
and  Jewish  point  of  view  "  disprove  its  "  literal  exact- 
ness." But  it  is  no  more  surprising  that  Cyrus  should 
ascribe  his  victories  to  Jehovah  and  promise  to  aid  in 
building  his  temple  in  a  proclamation  freeing  the  Jews, 
than  that  he  should  seek  to  ingratiate  himself  with  the 
people  upon  his  entry  into  Babylon  by  attributing  his 
successes  and  his  universal  empire  to  Merodach,  the 
patron-god  of  that  city,  and  declaring  himself  his  wor- 
shipper, and  inscribing  his  name  on  bricks  as  "  builder 
of  Esakkil  and  Ezida,"  the  temples  of  Merodach  and 
Nebo.  It  is  true  that  of  the  few  inscriptions  of  Cyrus 
thus  far  discovered  there  is  no  one  in  which  he  styles 
himself  "  King  of  Persia  "  ;  but  this  casts  no  suspicion 
upon  the  accuracy  of  this  record  in  Ezra.  Darius  twice 
entitles  himself  "  King  of  Persia,"  in  his  Behistun  in- 
scription, though  this  title  has  not  yet  been  found  upon 
any  other  of  his  inscriptions.  Why  may  not  Cyrus  have 
done  the  same  thing  in  this  one  instance  ?  and  for  the 
reason  that  while  the  title  "  King  of  Babylon  "  was  in 
the  experience  of  the  Jews  associated  only  with  oppres- 
sion and  injury,  they  were  prepared  to  hail  as  their  de- 
liverer the  "  King  of  Persia,"  by  whom  their  enemy  was 
overthrown. 

1  If  vi.  13-15  is  copied  from  a  document  written  before  the  arrival 
of  Ezra,  Dr.  Driver  is  right  in  his  contention  that  "  Artaxerxes  king 
of  Persia "  is  a  subsequent  addition  ;  otherwise  this  is  another  ex- 
ample of  the  combination  of  both  phrases. 


44  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

(3)  In  tho  letters  to  Artaxerxes  (iv.  8-23)  and  to  and 
from  Darius  (v.  6-vi.  13),  these  nionarchs  are  simply 
called  "the  king."  Artaxerxes  is  called  "  the  king"  in 
the  Book  of  Nehemiah,  and  in  that  of  Ezra  after  vii.  1. 
But  in  tho  narrative  prior  to  the  coming  of  Ezra  the 
title  "  King  of  Persia  "  is  repeatedly  applied  to  Cyrus, 
Darius,  and  Artaxerxes.  Now  it  is  said  that  after  the 
conquest  of  Babylon,  Cyrus  and  his  successors  assumed 
the  title  "  King  of  Babylon,"  which  is  given  them  (Ezra 
v.  13  ;  Neh.  xiii.  6  ;  cf.  Ezra  vi.  22  "  King  of  Assyria") ; 
but  the  title  "  King  of  Persia  "  implies  a  writer  subse- 
quent to  "  the  period  of  the  Persian  supremacy."  This 
seems  to  be  a  sweeping  conclusion  from  very  slender 
premises.  If  Darius  could  call  himself  "  King  of  Persia," 
as  he  does  in  his  Behistun  inscription,  and  Cyrus  give 
himself  the  same  title,  as  is  attested  (Ezra  i.  2),  and  there 
is  no  good  reason  for  discrediting,  why  might  they  not 
be  so  called  by  others  ?  It  is  said  that  after  the  fall  of 
tho  Persian  empire  its  monarchs  were  called  "  kings  of 
Persia  "  in  distinction  from  the  Greek  kings  who  suc- 
ceeded them.  A  precisely  similar  reason  applies  to  the 
Jewish  exiles  on  their  first  return  to  Jerusalem.  It 
was  Datural  for  them  to  speak  of  the  "  kings  of  Persia  " 
who  had  freed  them  from  exile  in  distinction  from  the 
kings  of  Babylon  who  had  carried  them  into  exile  (Ezra 
ii.  1) ;  in  distinction  likewise  from  their  own  native 
princes  the  kings  of  Israel  (iii.  10).  They  were  no 
longer  under  kings  reigning  in  Jerusalem,  as  their 
fathers  had  been,  but  under  foreign  domination  (Neh.  ix. 
3G,  37),  which  was  a  distressing  situation,  even  though 
they  were  ruled  by  a  friendly  power,  "  the  kings  of  Per- 
sia," as  Ezra  himself  calls  them  (ix.  9,  see  ver.  5),  which 
is  of  itself  a  sufficient  refutation  of  the  critical  conten- 
tion. 

b,  "Neh.  xii.  11,  22  Jaddua,  three  generations  later 


THE  COMPLETION   OF  THE  CANON  45 

than  Eliashib,  the  contemporary  of  Nehemiah,  high 
priest  ii.c.  351-331,  is  mentioned." 

c.  "  Neli.  xii.  22  '  Darius  the  Persian '  must  (from  the 
context)  be  Darius  Codom annus,  the  last  king  of  Persia, 
B.C.  336-332 ;  and  the  title  *  the  Persian '  could  only 
have  become  a  distinctive  one  after  the  Persian  period 
was  past." 

As  Jaddua  was  high  priest  at  the  time  of  the  invasion 
of  Asia  by  Alexander  the  Great,1  aud  his  victory  over 
Darius  Codomannus,  it  would  appear  as  though  these 
verses  indicate  a  date  nearly  or  quite  a  century  after 
Artaxerxes  Lougimauus.  Prom  this  the  critics  infer 
that  the  books  of  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah  must 
all  be  referred  to  a  compiler  living  at  this  late  period. 

But  (1)  this  conclusion  is  much  too  broad  for  the 
premise  on  which  it  is  built.  The  Book  of  Nehemiah  is 
preceded  (i.  1)  by  a  title  of  its  own  referring  it  to  him  as 
its  author.  And,  as  Keil  remarks,  its  being  counted 
with  Ezra  as  together  forming  one  book  in  early  lists 
of  the  canon  no  more  establishes  unity  of  authorship 
than  the  fact  that  the  twelve  Minor  Prophets  were  reck- 
oned one  book  in  the  same  lists  proves  that  they  had  a 
common  author.  A  conclusion  with  regard  to  the  date 
of  Nehemiah,  if  well  founded,  would  have  no  bearing 
upon  the  determination  of  the  age  of  the  books  of  Ezra 
and  Chronicles. 

(2)  It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  the  list  of  priests 
and  Levites  in  xii.  1-26  is  a  section  complete  in  itself, 
and  with  no  very  close  connection  either  with  what  pre- 
cedes or  follows.2  The  utmost  that  the  critical  argu- 
ment of  date  could  prove,  if  its  validity  were  confessed, 

1  Joseplms,  Ant.,  xi.  8,  4. 

2  It  is  not  wholly  unconnected,  for  the  introduction  of  this  list  at  tliis 
place  appears  to  he  due  to  the  prominent  part  taken  by  priests  and  Le- 
vites in  the  dedication  of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem,  vs.  27-43. 


46  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

would  be  that  this  section  could  not  have  been  a  pre-ex- 
isting document,  which  Nehemiah  inserted  in  the  body 
of  his  narrative,  as  he  did  the  similar  list  in  vii.  5b  If. 
If  xii.  1-26  really  contained  internal  evidence  of  be- 
longing to  a  century  after  the  time  of  Neheroiah,  this 
would  not  invalidate  his  authorship  of  the  rest  of  the 
book,  in  which  no  indication  of  late  date  is  to  be  found. 
It  would  merely  show  that  this  section  did  not  belong 
to  the  book  as  originally  written,  but  was  a  subsequent 
interpolation.1 

(3)  If,  however,  xii.  1-26  be  examined  more  closely,  it 
will  be  found  that  the  condemnation  of  even  this  pas- 
sage is  more  than  the  critical  argument  will  justify. 
The  section  begins  (vs.  1-9)  with  "  the  priests  and  the 
Levites  that  went  up  with  Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua."  It 
proceeds  (vs.  12-21)  with  the  priests  "  in  the  days  of 
Joiakim  "  the  son  of  Jeshua.  Then  follow  (vs.  24,  25) 
"  the  chiefs  of  the  Levites,"  concluding  with  the  words 
(ver.  26),  "these  were  in  the  days  of  Joiakim,  the  son  of 
Jeshua,  and  in  the  days  of  Nehemiah  the  governor,  and 
Ezra  the  priest  the  scribe."  This  is  accordingly  a 
tabular  statement  of  the  priests  and  Levites,  including 
both  those  who  came  up  with  the  first  colony  of  exiles 
under  Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua,  and  those  of  a  subse- 
quent generation,  who  lived  during  the  high  priesthood 
of  Joiakim,  the  son  of  Jeshua,  and  were  contemporaries 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  This  being  the  declared  design 
of  tliis  section,  one  of  two  things  must  follow,  either  vs. 
10,  11,  and  vs.  22,  23  do  not  have  the  meaning  attributed 
to  them  by  the  critics,  or  else  they  are  out  of  harmony 
with  the  section  in  which  they  are  found,  and  so  are  no 
proper  part  of  it.  Each  of  these  alternatives  has  had  its 
advocates. 

1  This  is  maintained  among  others  by  Bertholdt,  Einleitung,  III.,  p. 
1031,  and  Prideaux,The  Old  and  New  Testament  Connected,  i.,  p.  2o2. 


THE   COMPLETION   OF  THE   CANON  47 

\L)  Havernick1  endeavors  to  show  without  much  suc- 
cess that  Neheruiah  might  have  lived  until  Jaddua  be- 
came High  Priest.  Keil  relieves  the  matter  by  remark- 
ing that  ver.  11  merely  traces  the  line  of  descent  to 
Jaddua,  without  attributing  to  him  any  official  position; 
and  even  ver.  22,  "  Levites  in  the  days  of  Eliashib, 
Joiada,  Johanan,  and  Jaddua,"  need  not  be  intended  to 
embrace  four  distinct  bodies  of  Levites,  living  severally 
under  one  or  other  of  four  different  high  priests,  but  a 
single  body  of  men  with  whom  these  four  generations 
of  sacerdotal  rank  were  contemporaries,  Eliashib  in  ad- 
vanced age,  his  great-grandson  Jaddua  in  early  youth. 
According  to  xiii.  28,  Neheniiah  expelled  a  grandson  of 
Eliashib,  who  had  married  a  daughter  of  Sanballat.  It 
is,  therefore,  quite  supposable  that  he  lived  to  see  Jad- 
dua, the  great-grandchild  of  Eliashib.  The  adjustment 
of  this  hypothesis  to  other  known  facts  only  requires 
that  Nehemiah,  who  came  to  Jerusalem  B.C.  444,  when 
perhaps  twenty  years  of  age,  and  Jaddua,  who  lived 
until  the  visit  of  Alexander,  B.C.  332,  could  have  been 
contemporaries  for  say  eighteen  years.  If  each  of  them 
attained  the  age  of  seventy-five,  which  is  surely  no  vio- 
lent supposition,  the  period  is  covered.2 

1  Einleitung,  II.,  i.,  pp.  320-322. 

2  There  is  much  uncertainty  in  regard  to  the  terms  of  office  of  the 
high  priests  after  the  return  from  exile  in  consequence  of  the  conflict- 
ing statements  of  authorities.  See  Herzfeld,  Geschichte,  II.,  Excursus 
xi.,  p.  368.  Keil  needlessly  infers  from  Neh.  xiii.  4,  7,  that  Eliashib 
died  between  Nehemiah's  return  to  the  king  in  the  thirty-second  year  of 
Artaxerxes,  b.c.  433,  and  his  second  visit  to  Jerusalem.  Then  suppos- 
ing Jaddua  to  be  ten  years  old  at  the  time  of  his  great-grandfather's 
death,  he  would  have  been  one  hundred  and  ten  when  Alexander  came 
to  Jerusalem,  to  which  he  compares  Jehoiada,  high  priest  under  king 
Joash,  living  to  the  age  of  one  hundred  and  thirty  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  15). 
But  if  with  Prideaux,  i.,  p.  321,  the  death  of  Eliashib  is  put  twenty 
years  later,  b.c.  413,  Jaddua  would  on  the  same  supposition  have  been 
ninety  when  he  met  Alexander. 


IS  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

The  inference  "  from  the  context "  that  the  Darius 
of  Neh.  xii.  22b  is  Darius  Codomannus,  is  based  on 
the  assumption  that  in  ver.  22a  Jaddua  is  spoken  of 
as  high  priest.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  his  boyhood 
is  intended,  Darius  Nothus,  B.C.  424-405,  would  be 
meant.  The  assertion  that  "the  title  'the  Persian' 
could  only  have  become  a  distinctive  one  after  the  Per- 
sian period  was  past,"  is  contradicted  by  the  Nakshi- 
Rustan  inscription  of  Darius  Hystaspes,  which  in  re- 
cording his  foreign  possessions  calls  him  "  a  Persian, 
son  of  a  Persian,"  and  speaks  of  him  as  the  "  Persian 
man  who  fought  battles  far  from  his  land  Persia."  The 
significance  of  the  title  lies  in  his  bearing  rule  over  non- 
Persian  lands,  not  in  distinguishing  him  from  a  non- 
Persian  successor. 

(2.)  If,  however,  in  vs.  10,  11,  22,  23,  Jaddua  is  re- 
garded as  high  priest,  and  Darius  Codomannus  is  in- 
tended, these  verses  cannot  properly  belong  in  a  list, 
which  limits  itself  to  "  the  priests  and  Levites  that  went 
up  with  Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua,"  and  those  who  were 
"  in  the  days  of  Joiakim,  Nehemiah,  and  Ezra."  They 
must  have  been  added  at  a  later  time  to  extend  the  list 
beyond  its  original  dimensions.  Eichhorn 1  truly  says  : 
"  That  these  are  a  foreign  addition  by  a  later  hand  can 
not  only  be  made  probable,  but  as  rigidly  proved  as  can 
ever  be  expected  in  regard  to  books  so  ancient  and  with 
critical  aids  so  recent.  The  contents  of  these  verses 
destroys  the  unity  of  the  entire  chapter,  and  presents 
something  that  the  author  did  not  mean  to  give.  They 
give  a  genealogy  of  the  high  priests  from  Jeshua  on- 
ward ;  and  no  other  passage  in  this  chapter  is  genea- 
logical." Dr.  Driver  refers  in  a  footnote  to  this  ready 
reply  to  the  alleged  indication  of  late  date,  but  adds 
"  even  supposing  this  to  have  been  the  case,  the  other 

>a  Einleituug,  4th  edition.  III.,  p.  631. 


THE  COMPLETION   OF  THE  CANON  49 

marks  of  late  composition  which  the  books  contain 
would  still  remain."  We  shall  see  whether  there  is  any- 
more force  in  "  the  other  marks  "  than  in  this  which  he 
seems  willing  to  surrender. 

d.  "Neh.  xii.  26,  47,  the  'days  of  Nehcmiah '  aro 
spoken  of  in  terms  clearly  implying  that  the  writer 
looked  back  upon  them  as  past."  j 

"The  days  of  Nehemiah  "  is  manifestly  an  expression 
that  could  be  used  indifferently  by  a  contemporary  of 
Nehemiah,  or  by  one  who  lived  subsequent  to  his  time. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  expression  itself  or  in  the  con- 
nection in  which  it  stands  to  give  the  preference  to  the 
latter  alternative.  The  famous  men  and  the  remarkable 
events  that  have  added  lustre  to  the  reign  of  Queen 
Victoria  can  be  spoken  of  without  implying  that  her 
beneficent  reign  is  ended. 

e.  "Other  indications  of  the  same  fact  will  appear 
below ;  e.g.,  the  position  of  Ezra  iv.  6-23  (which  refer- 
ring, as  it  does,  to  what  happened  under  Xerxes  and 
Artaxerxes,  could  not  possibly  have  been  placed  where 
it  now  stands  by  Ezra,  a  contemporary  of  the  latter),  the 
contents  and  character  of  vii.  1-10,"  etc. 

First  as  to  iv.  6-23.  Ch.  iv.  1-5  opens  with  an  ac- 
count of  the  vexatious  conduct  of  the  Samaritans,  who, 
when  their  proffered  aid  was  declined  in  building  the 
temple,  obstructed  the  work  in  every  possible  way  dur- 
ing the  entire  reign  of  Cyrus,  and  until  the  reign  of  Da- 
rius Hystaspes,  who  held  their  hostility  in  check  for  a 
time.  Before  explaining  the  action  of  Darius  in  this 
matter  the  author  proceeds  to  tell  how  this  hostility 
broke  out  afresh  in  the  beginning  of  the  very  next  reign, 
that  of  Ahasuerus  (=Xerxes,  ver.  6),  and  in  the  following 
reign  succeeded  in  obtaining  from  Artaxerxes  an  edict 
forbidding  the  construction  of  the  city  walls  (vs.  7-23). 
The  writer  then  reverts  to  the  first  stage  of  this  hostility 
4 


50  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

(ver.  5),  the  stoppage  of  the  work  upon  the  temple,  and 
relates  in  detail  how  the  favor  of  Darius  was  secured, 
and  how  effectually  he  thwarted  the  designs  of  the 
Samaritans  (iv.  24-vi.  15),  an  intimation  being  given  (vi. 
14)  of  an  edict  of  Artaxerxes  of  a  different  tenor  from 
that  first  issued,  without  explaining  how  it  was  brought 
about.  The  way  is  now  prepared  for  the  mission  of 
Ezra  and  his  reformatory  labors  (Ezra  vii.-x.)  and  for 
that  of  Nehemiah,  to  whom  it  was  left  to  explain  how 
the  favor  of  Artaxerxes  was  obtained,  and  how  he  was 
induced  to  give  orders  for  the  rebuilding  of  the  walls 
(Neh.  i.,  ii.). 

Opinions  may  differ  as  to  the  wisdom  of  the  plan 
which  the  writer  has  seen  fit  to  adopt.  I  agree  with 
those  who  think  it  carefully  considered  and  well  carried 
out.  Dr.  Driver  and  others  are  utterly  dissatisfied  with 
it.  They  complain  that  "  the  notice  of  the  letter  to 
Ahasuerus  and  the  correspondence  with  Artaxerxes  re- 
late to  a  different  and  subsequent  period,  and  is  out  of 
place,  as  they  relate  to  the  interruptions  to  the  project 
of  rebuilding,  not  the  temple,  but  the  city  walls,  occur- 
rences some  eighty  years  later  than  the  period  he  was 
describing."  The  writer  might,  indeed,  if  he  had  so 
chosen,  upon  the  mention  of  the  interruptions  to  the 
rebuilding  of  the  temple,  have  proceeded  at  once  to  say 
how  these  were  overcome  and  when  the  temple  was 
completed,  and  have  reserved  the  obstruction  to  the  re- 
building of  the  walls  to  a  later  point  in  his  narrative. 
But  it  was  equally  consistent  with  good  style  to  group 
together  the  successive  acts  of  hostility  which  the  Jews 
experienced  from  their  neighbors,  and  let  the  progress 
of  the  history  show  how  the  temple  and  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem  were  finally  built  in  spite  of  all  that  their 
enemies  could  do  to  prevent  it.  In  this  there  is  no 
overleaping  a  period  of  "  eighty  years."     The  trouble  is 


TTTE   COMPLETION   OF   THE   CANON  51 

traced  through  each  successive  reign  :  in  ver.  5,  Cyrus 
to  Darius  ;  then  ver.  6,  Xerxes  ;  then  ver.  7,  Artaxerxes. 
There  is  no  good  reason  for  the  charge  that  this  is  "  a 
method  which  could  only  mislead  and  confuse  the 
reader."  And  the  mistake  attributed  to  the  writer  of 
referring  "  to  troubles  connected  with  the  restoration 
of  the  temple  what  related  in  fact  to  the  restoration  of 
the  city  walls  "  really  belongs  to  those  interpreters  who, 
disregarding  the  plain  sense  of  the  language  used,  en- 
deavored to  force  it  into  correspondence  with  precon- 
ceived notions  of  their  own. 

Secondly,  as  to  vii.  1-10.  It  is  claimed  on  very  trivial 
grounds  that  this  "is  certainly  not  Ezra's  work,"  but 
none  of  the  objections  which  are  raised  have  the  sem- 
blance of  implying  a  later  date  than  the  time  of  Ezra. 
Notice  is  taken  of  "  the  omission  of  Ezra's  immediate 
ancestors  (for  Seraiah  was  contemporary  with  Zedekiah, 
2  Kin.  xxv.  18-21),  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  pre- 
viously to  Ezra's  time."  The  only  inference  which  can 
be  drawn  from  this  is  that  Ezra  preferred  to  link  himself 
with  his  distinguished  ancestors  before  the  exile  rather 
than  with  those  since  of  less  note.  He  was  sprung 
from  the  line  of  high  priests  extending  from  Aaron  to 
Seraiah,  but  not  including  Jehozadak,  Seraiah's  succes- 
sor (1  Chron.  vi.  14,  15),  the  probability  being  that  he 
was  descended  from  a  younger  son  of  Seraiah,  so  that 
the  family  was  thenceforward  of  lower  rank. 

"Ys.  7-9  anticipate  ch.  viii."  In  introducing  him- 
self to  his  readers  Ezra  first  gives  his  pedigree  (vs.  1-5), 
then  states  very  briefly  and  in  general  terms  the  fact, 
the  purpose,  and  the  time  of  his  coming  to  Jerusalem 
with  a  fresh  colony  of  exiles  (vs.  0-10),  as  preliminary 
to  a  detailed  account  of  his  commission  from  the  king 
(vs.  11-28),  the  persons  who  accompanied  him  (viii. 
1-14),  and  the  particulars  of  the  expedition  (vs.  15-31) 


52  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

and  its  arrival  (vs.  32-36).  It  is  difficult  to  see  why 
the  same  person  might  not  write  all  this  continu- 
ously. 

"The  expressions  of  the  compiler  in  ver.  10,"  the 
evidence  of  which  is  found  in  their  correspondence 
with  expressions  in  the  Books  of  Chronicles.  But  what 
if  the  compiler  was  Ezra  himself,  who  has  very  gener- 
ally been  supposed  to  be  the  author  of  Chronicles  ? 
And  Dr.  Driver  admits  that  he  uses  one  of  Ezra's  ex- 
pressions at  the  end  of  vs.  6,  9.  Whether,  however, 
Ezra  wrote  the  book  which  bears  his  name,  or  it  was 
compiled  by  another,  is  of  little  moment  so  far  as  our 
present  inquiry  is  concerned,  unless  it  can  be  shown 
that  the  compilation  was  made  after  Ezra's  own 
time. 

Thirdly.  One  more  argument  remains:  "There  are 
long  periods  on  which  the  narrative  is  silent ;  in  one 
case  especially  (Ezra  vi.  22-vii.  1),  an  interval  of  sixty 
years,  tin  mediately  before  Ezra's  own  time,  being  passed 
over  by  the  words  '  After  these  things '  in  a  manner 
not  creditable  if  the  writer  were  Ezra  himself,  but  per- 
fectly natural  if  the  writer  lived  in  an  age  to  which  the 
period,  B.C.  516-458,  was  visible  only  in  a  distant  per- 
spective." It  should  be  remembered,  however,  that  the 
book  does  not  profess  to  be  an  annalistic  record  of  all 
that  took  place.  It  deals  with  the  early  condition  and 
prospects  of  the  infant  colony  and  the  progress  made 
in  re-establishing  the  worship  of  God,  and  in  freeing  the 
people  from  heathenish  contamination ;  and  periods  in 
which  there  was  nothing  to  record  which  was  germane 
to  the  purpose  of  the  writer  are,  of  course,  passed  over 
slightly.  "  After  these  things  "  (vii.  1)  refers  not  only 
to  the  dedication  of  the  temple  fifty-eight  }^ears  before, 
as  described  in  the  immediately  preceding  verses,  but 
to  all  that  had  been  previously  recorded,  including  (iv. 


THE  COMPLETION   OF  TIIE  CANON  53 

G-23)  tlie  embarrassments  which  hart  arisen  in  the  reign 
of  Xerxes  and  Artaxerxes  almost  at  the  very  time  of 
Ezra's  corning. 

The  arguments  adduced  to  prove  that  the  books  of 
Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah  belong  to  "a  date 
shortly  after  B.C.  333,"  when  the  Persian  empire  was 
overthrown  by  Alexander  the  Great,  have  now  been  ex- 
amined, and  it  is  fair  to  say  that  so  far  from  establish- 
ing the  date  alleged,  they  point  to  nothing  later  than 
the  age  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  or  the  close  of  the  reign 
of  Artaxerxes,  B.C.  425. 

The  only  data  for  ascertaining  the  age  of  the  Book  of 
Ecclesiastes  are  its  reflections  upon  governmental  abuses 
and  the  character  of  its  language ;  and  these  are  of  too 
vague  and  general  a  nature  to  lead  to  a  determinate  re- 
sult. Dr.  Driver  says  ("  Lit.  O.  T.,"  p.  471)  :  "  Its  pages 
reflect  the  depression  produced  by  the  corruption  of  an 
Oriental  despotism,  with  its  injustice  (iii.  1G,  iv.  1,  v.  8, 
viii.  9),  its  capriciousness  (x.  5f.),  its  revolutions  (x.  7), 
its  system  of  spies  (x.  20),  its  hopelessness  of  reform. 
Its  author  must  have  lived  when  the  Jews  had  lost  their 
national  independence  and  formed  but  a  province  of 
the  Persian  empire,  perhaps  even  later  when  they  had 
passed  under  the  rule  of  the  Greeks  (3d  cent.  B.C.).'* 
And  (p.  475f .)  "  The  precise  date  of  Ecclesiastes  cannot 
be  determined,  our  knowledge  of  the  history  not  enab- 
ling us  to  interpret  with  any  confidence  the  allusions  to 
concrete  events  which  it  seems  to  contain.  But  the 
general  political  condition  which  it  presupposes,  and 
the  language,  make  it  decidedly  probable  that  it  is  not 
earlier  than  the  latter  years  of  the  Persian  rule,  which 
ended  B.C.  333,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  it  is  later." 
How  inconclusive  this  argument  is  in  Dr.  Driver's  own 
esteem  is  apparent  from  the  use  mado  of  "perhaps," 
"  probable,"  and  "  possible"  in  the  course  of  it.  Doubt- 


54  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

less  any  Oriental  despotism,  Babylonish,  Persian,  or 
Grecian,  at  any  period  of  its  history,  would  afford  abun- 
dant materials  for  just  such  reflections  as  are  to  be 
found  in  Ecclesiastes.  And  for  all  that  appears  they 
could  be  indulged  in  the  first  century  of  the  Persian 
domination,  B.C.  536-436,  as  well  as  afterward. 

Dr.  Driver  further  says  (p.  473)  :  "  Linguistically, 
Ecclesiastes  stands  by  itself  in  the  Old  Testament.  The 
Hebrew  in  which  it  is  written  has  numerous  features  in 
common  with  the  latest  parts  of  the  Old  Testament, 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  Chronicles,  Esther,  but  it  has  in 
addition  many  not  met  with  in  these  books,  but  found 
first  in  the  Mishnah  (which  includes,  no  doubt,  older 
elements,  but  received  its  present  form  cir.  200  A.D.). 
The  characteristic  of  the  Hebrew  in  which  these  latest 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament  are  written  is  that  while 
many  of  the  old  classical  words  and  expressions  still 
continue  in  use,  and,  in  fact,  still  preponderate,  the  syn- 
tax is  deteriorated,  the  structure  of  sentences  is  cum- 
brous and  inelegant,  and  there  is  a  very  decided  admix- 
ture of  words  and  idioms  not  found  before,  having 
usually  affinities  with  the  Aramaic,  or  being  such  as  are 
in  constant  and  regular  use  in  the  Hebrew  of  post- 
Christian  times  (the  Mishnah,  etc.).  And  this  latter 
element  is  decidedly  larger  and  more  prominent  in 
Ecclesiastes  than  in  either  Esther  or  Ezra,  Nehemiah, 
Chronicles."  And  (p.  476)  some  "place  it  cir.  200  B.C. 
on  the  ground  of  language,  which  favors,  even  though 
our  knowledge  is  not  sufficient  to  enable  us  to  say  that 
it  requires,  a  date  later  than  "  the  latter  years  of  the  Per- 
sian rule. 

But  in  the  chaotic  condition  of  the  Hebrew  language 
after  the  exile,  and  its  rapid  deterioration  from  constant 
contact  with  the  Aramean,  from  which  it  had  already  re- 
ceived a  large  infusion,  and  which  was  in  familiar  use 


THE  COMPLETION   OF  THE   CANON  55 

along  with  it,  as  is  shown  by  the  Aramean  sections  of 
the  Book  of  Ezra,  the  measure  of  its  degeneracy  in  any 
particular  writing  cannot  afford  a  certain  criterion  of  its 
relative  date.  The  critics  certainly  do  not  feel  them- 
selves bound  by  any  such  rule.  The  purity  of  Joel's 
style  does  not  prevent  them  from  attempting  to  prove 
him  postexilic.  They  do  not  hesitate  to  place  Isaiah 
xl.-lxvi.,  notwithstanding  its  classic  elegance,  later  than 
Ezekiel  with  his  abundant  Aramaisms  and  anomalous 
forms.  The  Hebrew  original  of  the  Book  of  Sirach  or 
Ecclesiasticus  is,  in  the  judgment  of  Dr.  Driver  (p.  474 
note),  predominantly  classical,  "  and  in  syntax  and 
general  style  stands  upon  a  much  higher  level  than  Ec- 
clesiastes  or  Esther,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Chronicles,"  all  of 
which  he  places  a  century  or  more  before  it.  In  our 
ignorance  of  the  extent  to  which  the  popular  language 
had  been  corrupted  by  Aramaisms  in  the  first  century 
after  the  exile,  or  how  far  the  language  of  certain  books 
written  at  that  time  may  have  been  affected  by  the  imi- 
tation of  earlier  models,  it  cannot  with  any  show  of  rea- 
son be  affirmed  that  such  a  book  as  Ecclesiastes  could 
not  have  been  produced  then.    . 

The  attempt  to  establish  a  late  date  for  the  book  by 
the  supposed  detection  of  Sadducean  sentiments  or  of 
the  influence  of  certain  forms  of  Greek  philosophy  has 
still  less  to  recommend  it. 

In  regard  to  Esther,  Dr.  Driver  says  (p.  484) :  "  Ma- 
terials do  not  exist  for  fixing  otherwise  than  approxi- 
mately the  date  at  which  the  Book  of  Esther  was  com- 
posed. Xerxes  is  described  (i.  If.)  in  terms  which  im- 
ply that  his  reign  lay  in  a  somewhat  distant  past  when 
the  author  wrote.  By  the  majority  of  critics  the  book 
is  assigned  either  to  the  early  years  of  the  Greek  period 
(which  began  B.C.  332),  or  to  the  third  century  B.C. 
With  such  a  date  the  diction  would  well  agree,  which, 


56  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

though  superior  to  that  of  the  Chronicler,  and  more  ac- 
commodated to  the  model  of  the  earlier  historical  books, 
contains  many  late  words  and  idioms,  and  exhibits  much 
deterioration  in  syntax." 

No  protracted  period  after  the  reign  of  Xerxes  is  re- 
quired to  account  for  the  manner  in  which  he  is  spoken 
of  (i.  If.)-  The  language  used  would  be  entirely  appro- 
priate under  his  immediate  successor  Artaxerxes  Longi- 
manus.  And  the  character  of  the  Hebrew  of  the  Book 
of  Esther  finds  an  adequate  explanation  then  as  well  as 
at  a  later  time.  The  critical  opinion,  which  would  place 
it  one  or  two  centuries  later,  is  due  to  a  disposition 
to  discredit  the  history,  which  accords  admirably  with 
what  is  known  from  other  sources  of  the  life  and  char- 
acter of  Xerxes,  and  of  Persian  customs,  and  is  con- 
firmed by  the  feast  of  Purim,  established  in  commemo- 
ration of  the  deliverance  here  recorded,  and  which, 
according  to  Josephus,1  the  Jews  have  observed  ever 
since. 

Of  all  the  revolutionary  conclusions  of  the  critics  there 
is  no  one  that  is  affirmed  with  greater  positiveness  or 
with  an  air  of  more  assured  confidence  than  that  the 
Book  of  Daniel  is  a  product  of  the  Maccabean  period. 
And  yet  Delitzsch,2  before  he  had  himself  yielded  to 
the  prevailing  current,  correctly  describes  it  as  a  book, 
"  which  has  been  of  the  most  commanding  and  most 
effective  influence  on  the  New  Testament  writings,  which 
belongs  to  the  most  essential  presuppositions  of  the 
Apocalypse  of  John,  and  to  the  predictions  of  which  He 
who  is  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life  for  science  also, 
attaches  an  emphatic  Nota  Bene  (let  him  that  readeth 
understand  Mat.  xxiv.  15) ;  a  book,  the  genuineness  of 
which  had  no  other  opposer  for  almost  two  thousand 
years  than  the  heathen  scoffer  Porphyry  in  his  *  Words 
1  Ant.,  ad.  6,  12.  9  Herzog's  Encyklopaedie,  III.,  p.  271. 


THE  COMPLETION   OF  THE   CANON  57 

against  Christians/  but  whose  spuriousnoss  has  in 
Germany,  since  Semlcr  and  Eichhorn,  bccomo  step  by 
step  a  more  and  moro  indubitable  fact  to  the  Biblical 
Criticism  which  proceeds  from  rationalistic  presuppo- 
sitions. .  .  .  The  principal  ground  of  modern  Crit- 
icism against  its  genuineness,  as  it  makes  no  conceal- 
ment whatever  itself,  lies  in  the  miracles  and  predictions 
of  the  book."  With  almost  unbroken  uniformity  the 
critics  unhesitatingly  determine  tho  date  of  the  book  by 
what  they  consider  the  limit  of  its  professed  predictions, 
which  in  their  esteem  are  merely  history  in  the  garb  of 
prophecy. 

Dr.  Driver  indeed  makes  a  show  of  separating  tho 
literary  from  the  dogmatic  grounds  on  which  it  is 
claimed  that  the  book  is  not  "  the  work  of  Daniel  him- 
self." According  to  Dr.  Driver,  "  Internal  evidence 
shows,  with  a  cogency  that  cannot  bo  resisted,  that  it 
must  have  been  written  not  earlier  than  circ.  300  B.C., 
and  in  Palestine ;  and  it  is  at  least  probable  that  it  was 
composed  under  the  persecution  of  Antiochus  Epipha- 
nes,  168  or  167  B.C. 

"  1.  The  following  are  facts  of  a  historical  nature, 
which  point  more  or  less  decisively  to  an  author  later 
than  Daniel  himself : 

"  a.  The  position  of  the  book  in  the  Jewish  Canon, 
not  among  the  prophets,  but  in  the  miscellaneous  col- 
lection of  writings  called  the  Hagiographa,  and  among 
the  latest  of  these,  in  proximity  to  Esther.  Though 
little  definite  is  known  respecting  the  formation  of  tho 
Canon,  the  division  known  as  the  '  Prophets,'  was  doubt- 
less formed  prior  to  the  Hagiographa;  and  had  the 
Book  of  Daniel  existed  at  the  time,  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  it  would  have  ranked  as  the  work  of  a 
prophet,  and  have  been  included  among  the  former." 

The  fact  is  that  its  being  included  in  the  Canon  is  a 


58  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

serious  obstacle  to  the  critical  hypothesis  of  its  late 
date.  And  as  will  be  shown,  when  we  come  to  consider 
the  threefold  division  of  the  Canon,  it  has  its  proper 
place,  and  that  not  in  conflict  with  but  confirmatory  of 
the  date  which  it  claims  for  itself  and  which  has  until 
recent  times  been  uniformly  attributed  to  it. 

"  b.  Jesus,  the  son  of  Sirach  (writing  circ.  200  B.C.), 
in  his  enumeration  of  Israelitish  worthies,  ch.  xliv.-l., 
though  he  mentions  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel  and  (col- 
lectively) the  twelve  Minor  Prophets,  is  silent  as  to 
Daniel." 

So,  too,  though  he  mentions  Zerubbabel,  Jeshua  the 
son  of  Jozadak,  and  Nehemiah,  he  is  silent  as  to  Ezra. 
Are  we,  therefore,  to  infer  that  there  was  no  such  per- 
son as  Ezra,  or  that  he  was  not  associated  with  Nehe- 
miah, or  that  he  was  of  so  little  consequence  that  the 
son  of  Sirach  had  never  heard  of  him?  And  shall  the 
silence  of  the  son  of  Sirach  outweigh  the  express  men- 
tion of  Daniel  by  his  contemporary  Ezekiel  (xiv.  14, 
20,  xxviii.  3)  ?  1 

ilc.  That  Nebuchadnezzar  besieged  Jerusalem   and 

1  Dr.  Driver  says,  p.  510  note  :  "  Whether  he  is  alluded  to  in  Ezek. 
xiv.  14,  20,  xxviii.  3  is  uncertain  :  the  terms  in  which  Ezekiel  speaks 
in  ch.  xiv.,  seem  to  suggest  a  patriarch  of  antiquity,  rather  than  a 
younger  contemporary  of  his  own."  The  remark  is  gratuitous  and 
without  the  slightest  foundation.  "  Noah,  Daniel,  and  Job  "  are  grouped 
together,  with  no  reference  to  the  age  in  which  they  lived,  as  signal 
instances  of  those  who  had  delivered  others  by  their  righteousness; 
Noah,  whose  family  were  saved  with  himself  from  the  flood ;  Daniel, 
who  by  bis  prevailing  prayer  rescued  the  wise  men  of  Babylon  from 
being  slain  by  the  frenzied  order  of  the  king  (Dan.  ii.  18-24) ;  and 
Job,  wbose  three  friends  were  spared  at  his  intercession  (Job  xlii. 
7-9).  If  Grant,  Julius  Caesar,  and  Alexander  the  Great  were  mentioned 
together  as  three  famous  generals,  would  the  fact  that  one  was  mod- 
ern and  the  others  ancient  make  the  identity  of  the  first  named  un- 
certain?  The  Daniel  of  the  captivity  precisely  answers  to  Ezekiel's  de- 
scription, aud  there  is  no  other  that  does. 


THE    COMPLETION    OF   THE   CANON  f)0 

carried  away  some  of  tlie  sacred  vessels  in  *Hh.e  third 
year  of  Jelioiakim '  (Dan.  i.  1  f.),  though  it  cannot, 
strictly  speaking,  be  disproved,  is  highly  improbable; 
not  only  is  the  Book  of  Kings  silent,  but  Jeremiah,  in 

the  following  year  (ch.  xxv.,  etc. ;  see  ver.  1),  speaks  of 
the  Chaldeans  in  a  manner  which  appears  distinctly  to 
imply  that  their  arms  had  not  yet  been  seen  in  Jud.ih." 

The  solution  of  this  imaginary  difficulty  is  very 
simple.  It  is  only  necessary  to  remember  that  a  mili- 
tary expedition  is  not  always  finished  in  the  same  year 
in  which  it  is  undertaken.  Nebuchadnezzar  began  his 
march  in  the  third  year  of  Jelioiakim.  His  advance  was 
disputed  by  Pharaoh-neco ;  the  decisive  battle  of  Car- 
chemish,  which  broke  the  power  of  Egypt,  was  fought 
in  the  fourth  year  of  Jelioiakim  (Jer.  xlvi.  IV  The  way 
was  now  clear  for  Nebuchadnezzar  to  continue  his 
march  and  lay  siege  to  Jerusalem.  The  Hebrew  verb  in 
Dan.  i.  1  does  not  require  us  to  understand  that  Nebu- 
chadnezzar arrived  in  Jerusalem  in  the  third  year  of 
Jelioiakim,  much  less  that  he  finished  his  siege  and 
carried  oft*  his  booty  in  that  year.  It  is  the  same  verb 
that  is  used  of  the  vessel,  in  which  Jonah  took  passage 
(Jon.  i.  3),  which  was  not  then  arriving  in  Tarshish, 
but  "  going  to  Tarshish,"  i.e.y  setting  out  on  its  voyage 
to  that  place. 

"d.  The  'Chaldeans'  are  synonymous  in  Dan.  i.  4, 
ii.  2,  etc.,  with  the  caste  of  wise  men.  This  sense  '  is 
unknown  in  the  Ass. -Bab.  language,  has,  wherever  it 
occurs,  formed  itself  after  the  end  of  the  Babylonian 
empire,  and  is  thus  an  indication  of  the  post  exilic  com- 
position of  the  book '  (Schrader,  Keilinschriften  and  d. 
A.  Test.,  Ed.  2,  p.  429).  It  dates,  namely,  from  a  time 
when  practically  the  only  '  Chaldeans'  known  belonged 
to  the  caste  in  question." 

One  might  naturally  suppose  from  the  positive  man- 


60  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

ner  in  which  this  assertion  is  made,  that  all  the  senses 
which  the  word  "  Chaldeans "  had  or  could  have  in 
the  language  of  Babylon  were  well  known,  and  that  it 
was  an  ascertained  fact  that  a  meaning  is  attributed  to 
it  in  the  Book  of  Daniel  which  was  entirely  foreign  to 
Babylonish  usage.  And  yet  Schrader  himself  says  (p. 
133  of  the  very  volume  from  which  the  above  assertion 
is  taken),  "  that  the  name  Chaldeans  has  thus  far  only 
been  found  in  Assyrian  monuments,"  and  that  "  hither- 
to we  possess  accounts  about  the  Chaldeans  only  from 
Assyrian  sources  "  ;  so  that,  while  it  is  conjectured  that 
the  Babylonish  pronunciation  of  the  word  has  been  pre- 
served in  the  Hebrew,  as  the  Assyrian  has  in  the  Greek, 
even  this  is  as  yet  without  monumental  verification.  It 
would  appear,  therefore,  that  he  had  no  monumental 
authority  whatever  for  saying  that  the  word  "  Chal- 
deans "  was  not  applied  in  Babylon,  as  it  is  in  the  Book 
of  Daniel,  to  one  of  the  classes  of  wise  men. 

"  e.  Belshazzar  is  represented  as  king  of  Babylon ;  and 
Nebuchadnezzar  is  spoken  of  throughout  ch.  v.  (vs.  2, 
11, 13, 18,  22)  as  his  father.  In  point  of  fact  Nabonidus 
(Nabunahid)  was  the  last  king  of  Babylon ;  he  was  a 
usurper,  not  related  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  one  Bel- 
sharuzur  is  mentioned  as  his  son." 

It  is  surprising  that  this  notable  proof  of  the  writer's 
familiarity  with  affairs  in  Babylon  should  be  urged  as 
an  objection  to  Daniel's  authorship.  No  ancient  writer, 
native  or  foreign,  has  preserved  the  name  of  Belshazzar, 
or  given  any  hint  of  his  existence,  except  the  Book  of 
Daniel.  Daniel's  Belshazzar  was  accordingly  a  puzzle 
to  believers  in  the  authenticity  of  the  book,  and  a  butt 
of  ridicule  to  unbelievers,  like  Isaiah's  casual  mention  of 
Sargon  (xx.  1),  who  is  similarly  unknown  to  any  other 
ancient  writer.  But  the  first  Assyrian  mound  excavated 
by  Botta  proved  to  be  the  palace  of  Sargon,  and  Isaiah 


THE  COMPLETION   OF  THE  CANON  61 

was  vindicated.  Nabuna'id's  Sippara  inscription  s<  ft  red 
the  mystery  of  Belshazzar,  of  whom  he  Bpeaka  as  "  his 
eldest  son,  the  offspring  of  his  heart."  "  Belshazzar  tho 
king's  son  "is  likewise  spoken  of  in  several  contract 
tablets  in  connection  with  his  household  arrangements 
and  business  transactions  in  which  he  was  concerned. 
From  the  annalistic  inscription  of  Nabuna'id,  which  re- 
cords his  movements  in  each  successive  year  of  his  reign, 
it  appears  that  Belshazzar  was  in  command  of  the  troops 
in  northern  Babylonia,  while  Nabuna'id  himself  re- 
mained in  Tema,  a  suburb  of  Babylon,  from  his  seventh 
to  his  eleventh  year.  There  is  then  an  unfortunate 
break  in  the  inscription  until  Nabuna'id's  last  year,  his 
seventeenth,  when  he  is  stated  to  have  been  himself  at 
the  head  of  the  troops  in  northern  Babylonia  to  resist 
the  advance  of  Cyrus,  and  was  defeated  by  him.  This 
creates  the  presumption  that  Belshazzar  may  have  been 
on  duty  elsewhere,  perhaps  in  charge  of  the  capital, 
which  would  be  in  accord  with  Dan.  v. 

But  Dr.  Driver  insists  that  "  the  inscriptions  lend  no 
support  to  the  hypothesis  that  Belsharuzur  was  his 
father's  viceroy,  or  was  entitled  to  be  spoken  of  as 
'king';  he  was  called  'the  king's  son'  to  the  day  of 
his  death."  According  to  the  inscriptions  Belshazzar 
was  the  king's  son,  his  first  born,  his  dearly  beloved 
son,  and  in  command  of  the  army ;  what  is  there  in  this 
to  discredit  the  additional  statement  of  the  Book  of 
Daniel  that  he  was  addressed  as  "  king  "  ?  or  to  forbid 
the  assumption  that  he  may  have  been  formally  raised 
to  the  dignity  of  participation  witli  his  father  in  the 
kingdom,  perhaps  in  those  later  years  of  his  reign,  the 
record  of  which  in  the  annalistic  inscription  has  been 
unfortunately  obliterated?  In  the  first  edition  <»f  his 
"Literature  of  the  Old  Testament"  Dr.  Driver  says. 
in  a  footnote,  "In  respect  of  vii.  1,  viii.  1,  if  they  stood 


62  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

alone,  association  ivith  his  father  on  the  throne  would  he 
conceivable.  But  in  v.  28,  30  he  seems  to  be  described 
as  sole  kin^-."  The  statement  in  the  first  sentence  covers 
the  entire  case.  The  affirmation  in  the  second  sentence 
is  a  most  extraordinary  one,  inasmuch  as  v.  29  makes  it 
evident  that  Belshazzar  was  not  sole  king.  Why  was 
Daniel  promoted  to  be  the  third  ruler  in  the  kingdom  ? 
Why  not  second,  as  in  the  case  of  Joseph,  who  was  ad- 
vanced to  be  next  to  Pharaoh  ?  This  was  never  under- 
stood until  the  position  of  Belshazzar  was  cleared  up 
by  the  monuments.  Daniel  was  third  because  next  to 
Nabuna'id  and  Belshazzar.  Dr.  Driver's  suggestion, 
p.  490,  that  Daniel  was  "  made  one  of  the  three  chief 
ministers  in  the  kingdom,"  like  the  marginal  rendering 
of  the  English  Revisers,  "  rule  as  one  of  three,"  is  a 
simple  evasion  and  a  departure  from  the  plain  meaning 
of  the  original  word. 

But  how  could  Nebuchadnezzar  be  the  father  of  Bel- 
shazzar, when  his  real  father  was  Nabuna'id,  "  a  usurper, 
not  related  to  Nebuchadnezzar "  ?  Here  Dr.  Driver 
makes  the  reluctant  admission  :  "  There  remains  the  pos- 
sibility that  Nabu-nahid  may  have  sought  to  strengthen 
his  position  by  marrying  a  daughter  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
in  which  case  the  latter  might  be  spoken  of  as  Belshaz- 
zar's  father  (=  grandfather,  by  Hebrew  usage).  The 
terms  of  ch.  v.,  however,  produce  certainly  the  impression 
that,  in  the  view  of  the  writer,  Belshazzar  was  actually 
Neb.'s  son."  It  might  as  well  be  said  that  when  Jesus 
is  called  "  the  son  of  David,"  the  view  of  the  writer 
must  have  been  that  he  was  David's  immediate  descend- 
ant. These  words  might  be  so  interpreted  by  one  who 
did  not  know  from  other  sources  that  this  could  not  be 
their  meaning.  We  have,  it  is  true,  no  positive  infor-"*Nv 
mation  that  Nabuna'id  was  thus  allied  with  the  family  \ 
of   Nebuchadnezzar;   but  there  are  corroborating   cir- 


THE  COMPLETION   OF  THE  CANON  63 

cumstances,  which,  to  say  the  least,  heighten  the  "  pos- 
sibility"  into  a  very  strong  probability.  This  supposi- 
tion is  commended  by  its  perfectly  reconciling  all  the 
statements  in  the  case  ;  such  a  marriage  may  have 
inflamed  his  ambition  and  Led  to  his  usurpation  after 
the  example  of  Neriglissar,  tin*  successful  conspirator 
against  his  brother-in-law  Evil-merodach,  the  son  of 
Nebuchadnezzar;  this,  too,  explains  the  fact,  attested 
by  the  Behistun  inscription,  that  Nabuna'id  had  a  son 
Nebuchadnezzar,  who  was  twice  personated  by  impostors 
in  the  reign  of  Darius  Hystaspes.  My  colleague,  Dr. 
Davis,  has  called  my  attention  to  an  unpublished  coro- 
nation inscription  !  of  Nabuna'id,  in  which  he  says  :  "  Of 
Nebuchadnezzar  and  Neriglissar  the  kings  my  prede- 
cessors their  mighty  descendant  I  am  he."  This  ex- 
plicit claim  on  the  part  of  Nabuna'id,  however  he  may 
have  justified  it,  is  direct  monumental  evidence  that  he, 
and  by  consequence  also  his  son  Belshazzar,  considered 
themselves  descendants  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

One  mutilated  passage  in  the  annalistic  inscription, 
which  is  understood  by  Sayce,  Schrader,  and  Win  elder  to 
record  the  death  of  "the  king's  wife,"  has  more  recently 
been  translated  by  Hagen,  with  the  approval  of  Pinches 
and  Frederick  Delitzsch,  "  On  the  night  of  the  eleventh 
of  Marchesvan  Gobryas  attacked  and  killed  the  son  (?) 
of  the  king."  Upon  which  Dr.  Driver  remarks :  "  When 
the  Persians  (as  the  same  inscription  shows)  had  been 
in  peaceable  possession  of  Babylon  iovfour  month8,how 
could  Belshazzar,  even  supposing  (what  is  not  in  itself 
inconceivable)  that  he  still  held  out  in  the  palace,  and 
was  slain  afterward  in  attempting  to  defend  it,  promise 
and  dispense  (v.  7,  16,  29)  honors  in  his  kingdom,  and 
what  need  could  there  be  for  the  solemn  announcement 

'Translated  in    part   by  Boscawen,  Biblical  and   Oriental    Record, 
September,  1896. 


G4  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

(v.  25-28),  as  of  something  new  and  unexpected,  that  his 
(or  his  father's)  kingdom  was  to  be  given  to  the  Medes 
and  Persians,  when  it  must  have  been  patent  to  every- 
one that  they  were  already  in  possession  of  it  ?  " 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  take  any  special  pains  to 
defend  the  accuracy  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  against  this 
hypothetical  rendering,  of  which  Hagen  himself  says: 
"  It  is  greatly  to  be  regretted  that  the  words  which  give 
account  of  the  death  which  took  place  in  the  night  of 
the  eleventh  of  Marchesvan,  have  come  down  to  us  so 
mutilated  and  defaced.  .  .  .  Before  a  decisive  ut- 
terance can  be  made  on  a  point  so  unusually  important 
historically,  it  is  necessary  to  wait  for  a  duplicate  of  the 
text,  which  shall  leave  no  doubt  whatever  as  to  the 
characters  in  question."  But  supposing  the  case  to  be 
precisely  as  Dr.  Driver  puts  it,  it  will  be  observed  that 
the  inscription  so  understood  confirms  the  account  of 
Daniel  in  at  least  three  important  particulars,  viz.,  that 
Belshazzar  met  a  violent  death,  in  the  night,  and  on  the 
final  collapse  of  the  Babylonish  power.  The  difficulties 
suggested  by  Dr.  Driver  will  be  dispelled,  if  Belshazzar 
and  his  lords  believed  the  palace  impregnable,  and  cher- 
ished the  expectation  that  their  armies  might  yet  be 
rallied  and  the  intruder  expelled.  It  has  its  parallels  in 
Jeremiah's  purchase  of  a  field  in  Anathoth  at  the  very 
time  that  Jerusalem  was  besieged  by  Nebuchadnezzar 
and  the  captivity  was  imminent  (Jer.  xxxii.  8-12) ;  and  in 
the  public  sale  by  Komans  of  the  land  on  which  Hanni- 
bal was  encamped,  while  he  was  thundering  at  the  gates 
of  their  city  with  every  prospect  of  accomplishing  its 
overthrow. 
r  Dr.  Driver  sums  up  the  whole  situation,  as  he  regards 
)  it,  in  the  words,  "  The  historical  presuppositions  of 
/  Dan.  v.  are  inconsistent  with  the  evidence  of  the  con- 
temporary monuments."  On  the  contrary,  a  careful  exam- 


THE  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON        65 

ination  of  all  that  he  lias  adduced  justifies  the  assertion 
that  he  has  failed  to  point  unt  a  single  inconsistency 
between  Dan.  v.  and  the  monuments.  Now  is  it  con- 
ceivable that  a  nameless  Jew  of  a  later  age,  whom  the 
critics,  in  order  to  make  out  their  case,  are  obliged  to 
charge  with  gross  ignorance  of  some  very  conspicuous 
facts  of  the  intervening  history,  is  the  author  of  a  narra- 
tive detailing  particulars  respecting  the  last  day  of  the 
JJabylonish  empire,  which  have  escaped  the  notice  of 
all  ancient  writers,  but  are  signally  confirmed  by  native 
and  contemporary  inscriptions  brought  to  light  within 
the  last  few  years,  in  which  he  states  that  there  was  a  Bel- 
shazzar ;  that  he  was  in  Babylon  and  in  high  authority 
at  the  time  of  its  final  surrender ;  that  he  was  descended 
from  Nebuchadnezzar  (in  spite  of  the  fact  that  his 
father  was  a  usurper  and  not  of  royal  blood) ;  that  the 
queen  is  distinguished  (ver.  10)  from  the  wives  of  Bel- 
shazzar  (ver.  3) ;  that  she  was  living  at  the  fall  of  the 
city  (if  Schrader  reads  correctly) ;  that  she  was  familiar 
with  facts  in  the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  of  which  Bel- 
shazzar  appears  to  have  been  ignorant ;  that  she  was  a 
superior  person,  calculated  to  win  universal  respect,  as 
shown  by  her  calm  and  dignified  demeanor  in  the  midst 
of  a  terror-stricken  assemblage.  In  the  statement  of 
these  minute  circumstances,  otherwise  unknown,  there 
is  abundant  opportunity  for  anyone  to  trip  who  was 
not  perfectly  familiar  with  the  facts  with  which  he  was 
dealing.  And  yet  the  writer  of  this  book  has  threaded 
his  way  through  them  all  without  being  convicted  of  a 
single  blunder.  And  it  may  be  added  that  the  inscrip- 
tion of  Cyrus,  which  declares  that  his  army  entered 
Babylon  without  opposition,  has  falsified  the  statements 
of  other  historians  on  the  subject,  but  Daniel  remains 
uncontradicted.  He  speaks  of  no  siege  and  no  strata- 
gem to  gain  admission  to  the  walls.  He  simply  says 
5 


66  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

that  Belsliazzar  was  slain,  and  that  the  kingdom  was 
transferred  to  the  Medos  and  Persians.  Here  is  another 
chance  for  a  blunder.  Nabuna'id  survived  the  fall  of 
Babylon,  but,  if  Hagen  reads  correctly,  there  is  monu- 
\jM^  mental  evidence  that  Belsliazzar  did  not.     Can  we  fail 

**   &*i  ^°  see  *n  a^  tn*s  the  hand  of  one  present  at  the  scene, 

r  '•  v*«    and  who  knows  whereof  he  affirms  ? 

"^  /.  "  Darius,  son  of  Ahasuerus — elsewhere  the  Hebrew 

form  of  Xerxes — a  Mede,  after  the  death  of  Belsliazzar, 
is  '  made  king  over  the  realm  of  the  Chaldeans '  (v.  31, 
vi.  1  ff.,  ix.  1,  xi.  1).  There  seems  to  be  no  room  for  such 
a  ruler.  According  to  all  other  authorities,  Cyrus  is  the 
immediate  successor  of  Nabu-nahid,  and  the  ruler  of 
the  entire  Persian  empire." 

But  Sargon  and  Belshazzar  admonish  us  not  to  be  too 
hasty  in  imagining  that  the  explicit  statement  of  a  sa- 
cred writer  is  in  every  case  outweighed  by  the  silence 
of  other  historians.  Perhaps  Darius  the  Mede  may  be 
the  Cyaxares  1  of  Xenophon,  or  he  may  be  some  noble 
of  Median  birth,  to  whom  Cyrus  found  it  convenient  to 
commit  the  government  of  Babylon  for  a  brief  term. 
We  can  afford,  in  this  instance,  to  wait  for  further  light. 
The  inscription  of  Cyrus  records  his  entry  into  the  city 
and  the  submission  of  its  inhabitants  and  of  the  sur- 
rounding region,  but  beyond  the  appointment  of  some 
subordinate  officials  says  nothing  of  the  arrangements 
for  its  government.  So  far  then  from  there  being  "  no 
room  for  such  a  ruler,"  the  way  is  entirely  open  for  any 
ruler  whom  Cyrus  might  see  fit  to  place  in  authority 
over  this  conquered  kingdom.  Dr.  Driver  gratuitously 
utters  the  groundless  suspicion  that  the  writer  has  here 
confused  distinct  persons,  and  that  Darius  the  Mede  is 
"  a  reflection  into  the  past  of  Darius  Hystaspes,"  though 
in  his  first  edition  he  acknowledged  that  "  the  oircum- 

1  So  Josepkus,  Ant.,  x.  11,  4. 


THE   COMPLETION   OF  THE   CANON  67 

stances  are  not,  perhaps,  such  as  to  be  absolutely  in- 
consistent with  either  the  existence  or  the  office  of 
Darius  the  Mede  ;  and  a  cautious  criticism  will  not 
build  too  much  on  the  silence  of  the  inscriptions,  where 
many  certainly  remain  yet  to  be  brought  to  light." 

g.  "  In  ix.  2  it  is  stated  that  Daniel  '  understood  by 
the  books '  the  number  of  years  for  which,  according  to 
Jeremiah,  Jerusalem  should  lie  waste.  The  expression 
used  implies  that  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  formed 
part  of  a  collection  of  sacred  books  which,  nevertheless, 
it  may  safely  be  affirmed,  was  not  formed  in  53G  B.C." 

It  is  difficult  to  see  with  what  propriety  such  an  af- 
firmation can  be  made,  or  what  there  was  to  prevent 
Daniel  from  having  in  his  possession  the  inspired  books, 
so  far  as  they  had  then  been  written,  and  among  them 
the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah. 

h.  "  Other  indications  adduced  to  show  that  the  book 
is  not  the  work  of  a  contemporary  are  such  as  the  fol- 
lowing :  The  improbability  that  Daniel,  a  strict  Jew, 
should  have  suffered  himself  to  be  initiated  into  the 
class  of  Chaldean  '  wise  men,'  or  should  have  been  ad- 
mitted by  the  wise  men  themselves  (ch.  i. ;  cf.  ii.  13) ; 
Nebuchadnezzar's  seven  years'  insanity  (lycanthropy), 
with  his  edict  respecting  it ;  the  absolute  terms  in  which 
both  he  and  Darius  (iv.  1-3,  34-37,  vi.  25-27),  while 
retaining,  so  far  as  appears,  their  idolatry,  recognize  the 
supremacy  of  the  God  of  Daniel,  and  command  homage 
to  be  done  to  Him." 

It  is  surely  not  worth  while  to  waste  time  and  space 
in  giving  a  serious  answer  to  frivolous  objections  of 
this  nature,  which  might  be  multiplied  to  any  extent. 
It  is  sufficient  to  quote  Dr.  Driver's  own  words  in  re- 
gard to  them  :  "  The  circumstances  alleged  will  appear 
improbable  or  not  improbable,  according  as  the  critic, 
upon  independent   grounds,  has  satisfied  himself  that 


68  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

the  book  is  tlie  work  of  a  later  author  or  written  by 
Daniel  himself." 

In  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Driver,  the  arguments  above  re- 
cited "  tend  to  show  that  this  book  reflects  the  tradi- 
tions and  historical  impressions  of  an  age  considerably 
later  than  that  of  Daniel  himself."  There  seems  to  be 
nothing  to  justify  this  conclusion.  On  the  contrary, 
the  accuracy  of  its  statements,  even  in  minute  particu- 
lars, wherever  it  is  possible  to  test  them  by  comparison 
with  other  trustworthy  sources,  its  acquaintance  with 
facts  mentioned  by  no  other  historian,  but  recently  con- 
firmed by  contemporary  monuments,  and  its  general 
correspondence  with  all  that  is  known  of  the  situation 
assumed,  show  a  familiarity  on  the  part  of  the  writer 
with  the  scenes  described  such  as  could  not  be  expected 
in  a  Jew  residing  in  Palestine  two  or  more  centuries 
later,  but  which  agrees  exactly  with  the  claim  which  it 
makes  for  itself  of  being  the  work  of  Daniel,  a  high 
official  in  the  court  of  Babylon. 

In  regard  to  the  language  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  Dr. 
Driver  says  :  "  The  Persian  words  presuppose  a  period 
after  the  Persian  empire  had  been  well  established ; 
the  Greek  words  demand,  the  Hebrew  supports,  and  the 
Aramaic  permits,  a  date  after  the  conquest  of  Palestine 
by  Alexander  the  Great,  B.C.  332." 

This  is  a  sweeping  conclusion  from  very  slender  and 
precarious  premises.  Like  Persian  words  occur  in 
Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther,  and  Chronicles.  Why  might 
they  not  be  used  also  by  Daniel,  who  was  brought  into 
immediate  contact  with  Persian  monarchs  and  offi- 
cers ?  And  who  can  assure  us  that  Arian  words,  which 
can  now  be  best  explained  from  the  Persian,  had  not 
wandered  into  the  popular  speech  of  the  great  me- 
tre >]><>1  is  of  Babylon  before  its  conquest  by  Cyrus,  even 
though  they  have  not  yet  been  found  in    the  inscrip- 


THE  COMPLETION   OF   THE   CANON  Gi) 

tions?  The  Greek  words,  of  which  earlier  critics  had 
scraped  together  a  formidable  list,  have  n<>\\  been  re- 
duced to  three  names  of  musical  instruments.  One  of 
these  is  a  Homeric  word,  which,  Dr.  Driver  admits, 
might  have  travelled  into  the  East.  And  though  the 
other  two  do  not  chance  to  appear  in  this  sense  in 
Greek  literature  until  a  later  time,  this  does  not  dis- 
prove their  existence  in  ordinary  speech,  nor  the  pos- 
sibility of  their  being  carried  to  Babylon.  Dditzsch1 
says  on  this  subject,  "Why  should  not  three  Greek  in- 
struments have  been  known  in  Babylon,  the  'city  of 
merchants,' as  Ezekiel  calls  it,  in  the  pre-seleucid  pe- 
riod? A  recent  philologist 2  says,  without  having  the 
Book  of  Daniel  in  mind,  and,  therefore,  quite  unbiassed 
in  his  judgment :  '  The  extended  trade  of  the  Greek 
colonies  must  not  seldom  have  brought  Greek  merchants 
into  Assyrian  countries.  They  even  penetrated  beyond 
the  Volga  far  into  the  inhospitable  steppes  of  Russia  on 
the  Don.  But  the  intercourse  with  the  Assyrian  prov- 
inces of  Asia  Minor  must  have  been  most  considerable. 
That  Greeks  came  as  merchants  even  to  Assyria  itself 
is  and  must  remain  only  a  supposition,  but  it  is  certain 
that  Greek  soldiers  accompanied  Esarhaddon  in  his  ex- 
peditions through  Asia,  and  that,  generally  speaking,  the 
West  took  part  to  a  greater  extent  in  the  revolutions  of 
the  East  than  one  would  believe  is  shown  by  the  frag- 
ment of  a  poetical  letter  of  Alcreus  to  his  brother  An- 
timenides,  who  had  won  glory  and  stipend  under  the 
standard  of  Nebuchadnezzar.'  Accordingly,  acquaint- 
ance with  three  Greek  instruments  would  not  be  sur- 
prising nor  inexplicable  even  in  Nineveh,  not  to  say  in 
Babylon  under  the  later  Chaldean  dominion." 

Dr.  Driver   alleges  that    "the    Aramaic  of   Daniel, 

1  Herzog  Encyk.,  1st  edition,  III.,  p.  274. 

5  John  Brundis,  Allgem.  Monatsschrift,  1854,  2. 


70  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

(which  is  all  but  identical  with  that  of  Ezra)  is  a  West- 
ern Aramaic  dialect,  of  the  type  spoken  in  and  about 
Palestine."  Delitzsch 1  was  of  a  different  opinion  :  "  Af- 
finity with  the  Palestine  Aramaic  is  lacking  entirely ; 
it  is  with  the  Aramaic  of  the  Book  of  Ezra  the  oldest 
East  Aramaic  monument  preserved  to  us."  And  the 
interchange  of  Hebrew  and  Aramean  is  precisely  sim- 
ilar to  that  in  Ezra.  The  Hebrew  of  the  book  has  fewer 
anomalies  than  that  of  Ezekiel,  and  corresponds  with 
that  of  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah.  The  critics 
arbitrarily  assign  these  books  to  the  close  of  the  Persian 
or  beginning  of  the  Greek  period,  and  undertake  to  sup- 
port this  position  by  the  unwarranted  assertion  that  the 
common  character  of  their  language  is  indicative  of 
this  late  date ;  but  this  is  a  figment  used  to  bolster  up 
a  foregone  critical  conclusion.  These  books  belong  to 
the  period  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  and  determine  the 
language  of  their  time.  And  the  agreement  of  Daniel 
with  them  in  this  respect  points  to  a  period  not  far 
removed  from  them.  In  the  words  of  Delitzsch,2  "  In 
short,  the  total  impression  of  the  form  of  the  language 
corresponds  to  the  time  of  composition  claimed  by  the 
Book  of  Daniel."  And  this  is  not  discredited  by  the 
fact  that  Zechariah  adhered  somewhat  more  closely  to 
the  Hebrew  of  earlier  books. 

As  the  historical  and  linguistic  objections  are  insuffi- 
cient to  disprove  Daniel's  authorship,  it  remains  to  be 
seen  whether  the  dogmatic  objections  are  any  more  de- 
cisive. If  the  atheistic  or  pantheistic  position  is  taken, 
that  miracles  and  predictive  prophecy  are  impossible, 
and  that  doctrinal  development  can  be  no  other  than  a 
purely  natural  growth,  the  question  is  settled ;  Daniel 
cannot  have  been  the  author  of  the  book.     But  to  those 

1  Herzog-Plitt  Encyk.,  III.,  p.  471. 
2Herzog  Encyk.,  III.,  p.  274. 


THE  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON        71 

who  are  theists,  and  who  believe  that  God  has  mado  a 
revelation  to  men,  authenticated  by  immediate  mani- 
festations of  His  presence  and  power,  the  advanced 
teachings  of  this  book,  the  miracles  which  it  records, 
and  the  clear  prevision  of  the  future  hero  displayed, 
cannot  be  accepted  as  proofs  that  it  is  not  what  it  claims 
to  be,  what  it  has  traditionally  been  believed  to  be, 
and  what,  according  to  our  Lord's  teaching,  it  is. 

Dr.  Driver  infers  that  this  book  belongs  to  "  a  later 
age  than  that  of  the  exile,"  because  "  tho  doctrines  of 
the  Messiah,  of  angels,  of  tho  resurrection,  and  of  a 
judgment  on  tho  world,  are  taught  with  greater  distinct- 
ness, and  in  a  more  developed  form,  than  elsewhere  in 
the  Old  Testament."  But  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  fresh 
revelations  on  these  subjects  might  not  be  made  to 
Daniel,  as  well  as  to  one  in  the  period  of  tho  Maccabees. 
The  inspired  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  tho  Hebrews  be- 
lieved that  there  were  those  who,  through  faith,  had 
"stopped  tho  mouths  of  lions,  and  quenched  the  vio- 
lence of  fire  "  ;  why  may  wo  not  believe  it,  too  ? 

But  it  is  chiefly  to  the  predictions  that  Dr.  Driver 
objects : 

1.  "  That  tho  revelations  respecting  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes  should  bo  given  to  Daniel,  in  Babylon,  nearly 
four  centuries  previously." 

2.  "The  minuteness  of  tho  predictions,  embracing 
even  special  events  in  the  distant  future." 

3.  "  Whilo  down  to  the  period  of  Antiochus'  persecu- 
tion the  actual  events  are  described  with  surprising  dis- 
tinctness, after  this  point  the  distinctness  ceases:  tho 
prophecy  either  breaks  off  altogether,  or  merges  in  an 
ideal  representation  of  the  Messianic  future." 

But  (1)  the  Bible  contains  numerous  predictions  of 
the  remote  future,  and  these  often  relating  to  specific 
events,  which  are  exactly  stated  or  more  or  less  minutely 


72  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

described.  It  was  revealed  to  Abraham  that  a  great 
nation  should  descend  from  him  (Gen.  xii.  2),  which 
should  possess  the  land  of  Canaan  (ver.  7),  but  should 
first  be  in  bondage  in  a  foreign  land  four  hundred  years, 
on  which  judgments  should  be  inflicted,  and  then  they 
should  come  out  with  great  substance  (xv.  13,  14).  To 
Isaac,  that  Esau's  descendants  should  serve  Jacob,  but 
should  ultimately  throw  off  his  yoke  (xxvii.  40).  To 
Jacob,  many  particulars  respecting  the  settlement  of  the 
tribes  in  Canaan,  including  the  sceptre  in  Judah  (ch. 
xlix.).  To  Balaam,  the  sceptre  that  should  rise  out  of 
Israel  and  smite  surrounding  lands,  the  triumphs  of 
Assyria,  and  its  overthrow  (Num.  xxiv.).  To  Moses, 
that  Israel  should  suffer  from  distant  invaders,  and  be 
carried  into  exile  (Deut.  xxviii.).  To  Isaiah,  at  the  very 
outset  of  his  ministry,  the  desolation  and  captivity  of 
Judah  (v.  13,  26-30,  vi.  11,  12) ;  at  the  beginning  of  the 
reign  of  Ahaz,  the  Assyrian  invasion  and  its  inglorious 
issue  (vii.  17  ff,  viii.  7-10),  which  he  continued  to  reiter- 
ate until  Sennacherib's  disastrous  overthrow ;  when 
Hezekiah  vaingloriously  displa}'ed  his  treasures  to  mes- 
sengers from  Babylon,  that  these  should  be  carried 
thither  into  captivity  (xxxix.  6,  7),  but  that  Babylon 
itself  should  fall  and  be  reduced  to  utter  desolation 
(chs.  xiii.,  xiv.),  and  Judah's  exiles  be  released  by  Cyrus 
(xliv.  26,  28).  To  Micah,  that  Zion  should  be  ploughed 
as  a  field,  and  its  people  exiled  to  Babylon,  and  there 
delivered  (iii.  12,  iv.  10).  To  Jeremiah,  the  precise  du- 
ration of  the  captivity  (xxv.  11,  12),  the  utter  desolation 
of  Edom  (xlix.  17),  and  the  fall  of  Babylon  (chs.  li.,  Iii.). 
To  Zechariah,  the  victory  of  Zion  over  the  Grecian  army 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (ix.  13).  If  there  is  any  truth 
in  the  representations  of  Scripture  on  this  subject,  there 
have  been  numberless  predictions  of  specific  events  in 
the  distant  future.     Those  who  deny  the  possibility  of 


THE  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON       73 

predictive  prophecy,  act  consistently  in  unsparingly  ap- 
plying the  last  resource  of  the  critics,  and  sweeping 
away  every  vestige  of  clear  and  remote  predictions  by 
summarily  setting  aside  their  genuineness,  if  they  can- 
not rid  themselves  of  them  in  any  other  way.  But  it  is 
surely  very  inconsistent  in  those  who  admit  the  reality 
of  a  divinely  inspired  foresight  of  the  future,  to  prescribe 
in  advance  the  limits  and  bounds  within  which  alone 
this  may  be  exercised,  and  to  refuse  to  acknowledge  fche 
genuineness  of  any  prophecy  which  exceeds  fche  restric- 
tions that  they  have  arbitrarily  imposed  upon  it. 

(2.)  The  specific  predictions  of  Daniel  do  not  termi- 
nate with  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  The  four  empires  of 
chs.  ii.  and  vii.  are  the  Babylonian,  Medo-Pcrsian,  Greek, 
and  Roman.  The  attempts  to  find  four  empires  answer- 
ing to  these  visions  without  including  the  Roman  are 
manifest  evasions.  The  Medo-Persian  cannot  be  divided 
into  two.  The  Medes  and  Persians  were  under  one 
sovereignty,  and  so  are  uniformly  combined  in  the  Book 
of  Daniel  (v.  28,  vi.  8,  12, 15,  viii.  20),  in  Esther  (i  3, 
14,  18,  19),  and  repeatedly  in  the  Behistun  inscription 
of  Darius  Hystaspes.  Besides,  the  Persian  cannot  be 
the  third  of  Daniel's  empires,  since  it  does  not  corre- 
spond with  the  third  beast  of  his  vision,  which  had  four 
heads  (vii.  6),  indicating  its  fourfold  division,  which  was 
true  of  the  Greek  empire  (viii.  8,  22),  but  not  of  the 
Persian.  Nor  can  the  Greek  empire  be  divided  by 
counting  the  empire  of  Alexander  the  third,  and  that  of 
his  successors,  and  particularly  the  Syrian  branch,  from 
which  Antiochus  Epiphanes  sprang,  the  fourth.  For 
the  third  beast  with  its  four  heads  must  symbolize  an 
empire  broken  into  four  parts,  and  must,  therefore,  in- 
clude the  empire  of  Alexander's  successors  along  with 
that  of  Alexander  himself.  The  fourth  empire  is  repre- 
sented as  stronger  and  more  terrible  than  any  that  had 


74  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

preceded  it,  but  it  is  expressly  said  that  the  power  of 
Alexander's  successors  would  not  equal  his  own  (viii.  22, 
xi.  4).  And  no  satisfactory  account  can  be  given  of  the 
ten  horns  or  ten  kingdoms  to  arise  out  of  the  fourth 
beast,  if  this  be  the  empire  of  Alexander's  successors. 

The  only  plausible  argument  in  favor  of  making  the 
fourth  beast  represent  the  Greek  empire  is  the  assumed 
identity  of  the  little  horn  in  vii.  8,  24,  25,  and  that  in 
viii.  9-12,  23-25,  which  are  described  in  somewhat  sim- 
ilar terms.  That  in  ch.  viii.  is  undoubtedly  Antiochus 
Epiphanes ;  but  that  in  ch.  vii.  is  his  counterpart,  who 
was  to  arise  at  a  much  later  time,  the  Antichrist  of  the 
New  Testament  (2  Thes.  ii.  3,  4,  8-10;  1  John,  ii.  18; 
Rev.  xiii.  5-7). 

The  prophecy  of  the  seventy  weeks  (ix.  24-27)  was  ful- 
filled in  the  ministry  and  vicarious  death  of  Jesus  Christ 
at  the  predicted  time,  and  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem by  the  Romans  (cf.  Matt.  xxiv.  15,  16).  The  at- 
tempt to  apply  this  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes  both  re- 
quires a  wresting  of  its  terms,  and  assumes  a  strange 
ignorance  of  chronology  on  the  part  of  the  supposed 
Maccabean  writer. 

(3.)  It  is  quite  in  accordance  with  the  analogy  of 
prophecy,  when  Daniel  clearly  predicts  the  struggle  of 
the  Maccabees  against  Antiochus,  and  blends  with  the 
deliverances  of  that  period  the  blessings  of  Messiah's 
reign.  Messiah  is  ordinarily  the  background  of  every 
prophetic  picture.  It  is  so  with  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and 
the  prophets  generally.  Zechariah  predicts  the  contest 
with  the  Syro-Macedonian  empire,  and  then,  precisely 
as  Daniel  does,  hurries  away  from  it  to  the  coming  of 
Christ  (ix.  8,  9;  cf.  ver.  13).  Nevertheless  the  predic- 
tion that  the  Greek  empire  would  be  followed  by  the 
Roman,  shows  that  Daniel  did  not  expect  the  resurrec- 
tion and  final  judgment  to  follow  immediately  after  the 


THE  COMPLETION  OF  THE  CANON        75 

deliverance  from  the  persecutions  of  Antioclms,  and  thus 
corrects  the  false  inferences  drawn  from  the  transition 
in  xii.  1,  2.  Moreover,  if  tho  Book  of  Daniel  were  a 
spurious  production,  first  written  and  published  B.C. 
165,  and  contained  the  extravagant  and  fanatical  expec- 
tations which  have  been  imputed  to  it  respecting  tho 
miraculous  death  of  Antioclms  in  Palestine,  to  be  fol- 
lowed at  once  by  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  and  the  res- 
urrection—  expectations  which  were  falsified  by  tho 
event  within  two  years — must  it  not  have  been  discred- 
ited at  once  ?  How  could  it  ever  have  gained  credit  as 
the  genuine  work  of  a  true  prophet  of  God,  and  even 
have  been  attributed  to  one  who  lived  nearly  four  cen- 
turies before,  though  now  heard  of  for  the  first  time  ? 
And  especially  how  could  it  have  gained  such  speedy  and 
acknowledged  influence  as  to  have  been  at  once  inserted 
in  the  sacred  canon,  and  that  the  Book  of  Maccabees,  in 
recording  the  history  of  these  times,  adopts  its  very  lan- 
guage and  borrows  its  forms  of  expression  ?  Not  to  add 
that  there  is  strong  reason  to  believe  that  the  Septua- 
gint  version  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  in  existence  be- 
fore the  date  assigned  by  the  critics  for  its  composition. 

(4.)  The  attempts  which  have  been  made  to  compro- 
mise by  accepting  the  critical  conclusions  adverse  to  the 
genuineness  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  and  at  the  same 
time  holding  to  its  inspired  character  as  a  product  of 
divine  revelation,  are  as  futile  here  as  in  regard  to  other 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  which  have  been  similarly 
treated.  They  only  result  in  retaining  all  tho  difficulties 
which  have  been  thought  to  encumber  the  traditional 
belief  as  to  its  authorship,  and  in  introducing  others  of 
a  far  more  formidable  character. 

Dr.  Driver  thinks  that  the  author  was  "a  prophet  liv- 
ing in  the  time  of  the  trouble  itself,"  who  wrote  "  not 
after  the  persecutions  were  ended,  but  at  their  begin- 


76  GENERAL   INTPwODUCTION 

ning"  and  "thus  uttered  genuine  predictions."  ("Gen- 
uine predictions,"  as  distinguished  from  mere  lucky 
conjectures  or  shrewd  calculations  from  existing  causes, 
which  involve  a  real  prevision  of  what  lay  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  human  faculties,  are  the  essence  of  the  dif- 
ficulty to  those  who  would  explain  everything  from  nat- 
ural causes.")  This  is  not  relieved  by  reducing  their 
number,  or^by  shortening  the  time  prior  to  their  fulfil- 
ment. And  "  the  distinctness  of  the  prophecy  merging 
in  an  ideal  representation  of  the  Messianic  future,"  to 
which  Dr.  Driver  objects,  remains  equally  upon  his  own 
view  of  the  case.  But  if  the  author  of  the  book  is  a 
true  prophet,  and  utters  "  genuine  prophecies,"  why 
does  he  not  come  forward  in  his  real  character,  and  ut- 
ter them  in  his  own  name  as  a  messenger  sent  from 
God,  as  every  other  prophet  does,  and  as  an  honest  man 
must  do,  instead  of  falsely  ascribing  to  a  prophet  of  a 
former  age  what  he  never  uttered  ? 

Dr.  Driver  tells  us,  further,  that  "  the  book  rests  upon 
a  traditional  basis.  Daniel,  it  cannot  be  doubted,  was 
a  historical  person,  one  of  the  Jewish  exiles  in  Baby- 
lon who,  with  his  three  companions,  was  noted  for  his 
stanch  adherence  to  the  principles  of  his  religion,  who 
attained  a  position  of  influence  at  the  court  of  Babylon, 
who  interpreted  Nebuchadnezzar's  dreams,  and  foretold 
as  a  seer  something  of  the  future  fate  of  the  Chaldean 
and  Persian  empires.  Perhaps  written  materials  were 
at  the  disposal  of  the  author.  .  .  .  The  nar- 
ratives in  chs.  i.-vi.  are  thus  adapted  to  supply  motives 
for  the  encouragement,  and  models  for  the  imitation,  of 
those  suffering  under  the  persecution  of  Antiochus.  In 
chs.  vii.-xii.  definiteness  and  distinctness  are  given  to 
Daniel's  visions  of  the  future."  We  must  confess  that 
our  confidence  in  the  truth  of  the  facts  above  recited 
rests  upon  the  testimony  of  Daniel  himself,  rather  than 


THE   COMPLETION   OF  TIIE   CANON  77 

the  amiable  assurance  given  by  Dr.  Driver,  who  has 
found  them  "  mingled  with  much  that  is  unhistorical." 
And,  after  all,  he  gives  no  hint  whether  the  miraculous 
interferences  on  behalf  of  ( rod's  servants  in  chs.  i.  vi.  are 
facts  or  fictions.  If  the  former,  why  might  not  Daniel 
have  recorded  them?  If  the  latter,  they  would  be  falla- 
cious grounds  of  "  encouragement "  or  "  imitation. "  And 
so  far  as  "definiteness  and  distinctness  arc  given  to 
Daniel's  visions  of  the  future"  in  chs.  vii.-xii.  by  the 
author  of  the  book  in  its  present  form,  he  has  falsified 
them.  He  has  attributed  to  Daniel  definite  and  distinct 
predictions,  which  in  fact  he  did  not  make.  Such  a  de- 
fence, involving  moral  obliquity,  is  more  to  be  depre- 
cated than  open  assault. 

The  existence  of  Maccabean  Psalms  is  a  vexed  ques- 
tion, in  regard  to  which  there  is  the  widest  possible  di- 
versity of  opinion  among  critics.  Justus  Olshausen, 
von  Lengerke,  Keuss,  and  Cheyne  find  a  large  number, 
scattered  through  every  part  of  the  Book  of  Psalms, 
which  they  attribute  to  this  period.  According  to  Hit- 
zig,  Pss.  i.,  ii.,  lxxiii.-cl.  are  Maccabean.  Others  of  more 
moderate  views,  like  Delitzsch  and  Perowne,  are  content 
with  referring  Pss.  xliv.,  lxxiv.,  lxxix.  to  that  date.  Piob- 
ertson  Smith,  who  had  included  these  three  Psalms 
among  those  of  Maccabean  origin  in  the  first  edition  of 
his  "  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,"  no  longer 
regarded  them  as  such  in  his  second  edition,  but  assigns 
Pss.  cxviii.,  cxlix.,  and  a  few  others  in  the  latter  pari  <>f 
the  collection  to  the  early  years  of  Maccabee  sovereignty. 
On  the  other  hand,  such  critics  as  Gesenius.  Maurer,  De 
Wette,  Bleek,  Ewald,  Hengstenberg,  Havi  rnick,  Keil, 
Dillmann,  and  many  others  deny  that  any  Psalms  belong 
to  the  Maccabean  period,  and  insist  that  those  which 
have  been  so  referred  with  any  plausibility  find  their 
true  explanation  in  the  ravages  of  the  Chaldeans  when 


78  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

Jerusalem  was  destroyed  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  or  the 
troubles  succeeding  the  return  from  the  exile.  The  fact 
is,  as  Dr.  Driver  says,  p.  388,  "  The  grounds  upon  which 
specific  dates  can  be  assigned  to  individual  Psalms  are 
often  exceedingly  slender."  The  criteria  urged  for  the 
reference  of  particular  Psalms  to  the  Maccabean  period 
are  of  that  general  and  indefinite  sort  that  will  apply 
equally  well,  and  often  much  better,  to  other  and  earlier 
times  of  oppression  and  trial. 

(  We  have  now  examined  with  some  care  the  reasons 
adduced  to  show  that  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Ec- 
clesiastes,  Esther,  and  Daniel  belong  to  a  later  date  than 
the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  and  have  found 
them  unsatisfactory.  The  divergence  among  critics  in 
respect  to  Maccabean  Psalms  is  such,  and  the  grounds 
urged  in  their  favor  are  so  vague  and  inconclusive,  that 
their  existence  must  be  considered  very  problematical. 
The  statement  of  the  historian  Josephus  that  no  addition 
was  made  to  the  canon  after  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes 
Longimanus,  and  the  current  belief  of  the  nation  of  the 
Jews  that  Malachi  was  the  last  of  the  prophets,  and  that 
after  him  the  Holy  Spirit  departed  from  Israel,  thus  re- 
main uncontradicted,  except,  by  critical  theories  which 
rest  on  no  solid  foundation^ 


VI 

THE    THREEFOLD    DIVISION  OF  THE  CANON 

The  first  notice  that  wo  have  of  tho  canon  of  tho  Old 
Testament  after  its  completion  is  in  the  prologue  to  the 
Book  of  Ecclesiasticus.  The  writer,  by  whom  this  work 
of  his  grandfather,  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach,  was  trans- 
lated into  Greek,  speaks  of  the  sacred  books  as  "the 
law,  and  the  prophets,  and  the  others  that  followed  after 
them";  then  of  his  grandfather  giving  himself  largely 
to  the  reading  of  "  the  law  and  the  prophets  and  the 
other  books  of  the  fathers  " ;  and  still  further,  by  way 
of  apology  for  the  inferiority  of  his  translation  to  tho 
original  work,  that  this  is  the  case  even  with  "the  law 
and  the  prophets  and  the  rest  of  the  books,"  as  rendered 
from  the  Hebrew  into  another  tongue.  The  proximate 
date  of  this  prologue,  as  appears  from  a  statement  con- 
tained in  it,  is  the  thirty-eighth  year  of  Ptolemy  Euer- 
getes,  king  of  Egypt.  As  the  first  of  that  name  did  not 
reign  so  long,  this  must  be  Ptolemy  Euergetes  II.,  com- 
monly called  Physcon,  whose  thirty-eighth  year  would 
correspond  with  B.C.  130.  Accordingly  at  that  time,  and 
also  in  the  time  of  the  writer's  grandfather,  fifty  or  more 
years  earlier,  the  sacred  books  formed  a  definite  and 
well-known  collection,  arranged  in  three  divisions,  sev- 
erally denominated  "  the,  law  and  the  prophets  and  tho 
other  books,"  or  "  the  rest  of  the  books."  This  is  tho 
same  division  that  existed  ever  afterward,  and  is  now 
found  in  the  Hebrew  Bible.  It  has  been  alleged  that 
the  third  division  was  then  only  in  the  process  of  forma- 

79 


80  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

tion,  and  did  not  yet  contain  all  the  books  which  subse- 
quently belonged  to  it.  But  the  terms  in  which  it  is 
described  are  as  definite  and  explicit  as  those  applied  to 
the  other  two  divisions.  There  is  no  more  reason  to  re- 
gard it  as  oj)en  to  later  additions  than  there  is  in  the  case 
of  the  law  and  the  prophets.  That  it  does  not  receive  an 
equally  descriptive  designation  is  due  to  the  somewhat 
miscellaneous  character  of  its  contents.  The  designa- 
tions here  used  correspond  precisely  to  those  of  later 
times — law,  prophets,  and  k'thubhim  (writings)  or  hagi- 
ographa  (sacred  writings). 

This  division  differs  in  form  and  in  its  determining 
principle  from  the  fourfold  division,  adopted  in  all 
modern  versions  from  the  Greek  Septuagint,  into  the 
law,  the  historical,  the  poetical,  and  the  prophetical 
books,  based  upon  the  distinctive  character  of  these  dif- 
ferent classes  of  sacred  writings. 

The  threefold  division  of  the  Hebrew  canon  rests,  not 
upon  the  nature  of  the  contents  of  the  several  books,  but 
upon  the  personality  of  the  writers.  And  here  the  dis- 
tinction lies  not  in  the  various  grade  of  their  inspiration, 
as  was  maintained  by  Maimonides  and  the  rabbins  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  who  held  that  the  law  stood  first,  be- 
cause Moses,  its  author,  spake  with  God  face  to  face ; 
that  the  prophets,  who  came  next,  were  inspired  by  the 
Spirit  of  prophecy,  while  the  writers  of  the  k'thubhim 
had  a  lower  grade  of  inspiration,  viz.:  that  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  real  ground  of  the  division  is  the  official 
status  of  the  sacred  writers.  Moses,  as  the  great  legis- 
lator and  founder  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensation, 
occupied  a  unique  position,  and  his  books  appropriately 
stand  by  themselves  in  the  first  place. 

Then  follow  in  the  second  place  the  prophets,  a  dis- 
tinct order  of  men,  universally  recognized  as  such,  the 
immediate  messengers  of  God  to  the  people  to  declare 


THE  THREEFOLD   DIVISION   OF  TDIE  CANON       81 

his  will  and  purposes  to  thorn  for  their  guidance,  in- 
struction, and  admonition.  Their  writings  are  of  two 
kinds,  historical  and  prophetical.  In  the  former  they 
trace  the  hand  of  God  in  his  past  dealings;  in  the  latter 
they  deliver  the  messages  with  which  they  have  been 
charged.  Their  historical  writings  are  called  the  former 
prophets,  and  their  prophetical  writings  the  latter 
prophets,  from  the  order  in  which  they  stand  in  the 
canon. 

Finally,  the  third  division  comprises  the  writings  of 
inspired  men,  who  were  not  prophets  in  the  technical 
and  official  sense.  David  was  gifted  with  divine  inspir- 
ation, and  the  Psalms  composed  by  him  contain  Mes- 
sianic predictions  ;  bat  he  held  the  office  of  a  king,  not 
of  a  prophet.  80  with  Solomon.  Asaph  and  the  sons 
of  Korah  were  inspired  singers,  whose  function  was  to 
lead  the  devotional  worship  of  the  temple  ;  they  were 
not  officially  prophets.  Consequently  the  writings  of 
David,  Solomon,  Asaph  and  the  sons  of  Korah  properly 
stand  not  among  those  of  the  prophets,  but  with  the 
k'thubhim. 

The  principle  upon  which  the  classification  is  made 
is  thus  a  clear  and  obvious  one  ;  the  three  divisions  con- 
tain respectively  the  writings  of  Moses,  of  the  prophets, 
and  of  inspired  men  not  prophets. 

Dillmann 1  says  "  It  is  very  easily  understood  why  the 
prophets  are  separated  from  the  law,  and  again  the 
books  of  the  poets  from  the  prophets  ;  also  why  the  his- 
torical books  are  put  together  with  the  books  of  the 
prophets  in  one  division.  .  .  .  From  these  are 
rightly  distinguished  the  books  of  the  men  of  God,  who 
without  having  the  official  and  public  position  of  the 
prophets  are  yet  filled  with  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and 
knowledge,  and  impelled  by  the  forces  of  a  divine  life 
1  Jalirb.  f.  D.  Theol.,  III.,  p.  425. 
6 


82  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

within  them,  have  left  the  Church  written  monuments  of 
their  inner  spiritual  life.  So  far  the  division  is  quite 
clear  and  transparent,  and  likewise  of  the  kind  that  it 
could  without  scruple  be  derived  from  one  primal  and 
original  collector  of  these  three  parts."  If,  then,  the 
three  divisions  of  the  canon  had  contained  severally  the 
law,  the  prophets  (including  both  the  historical  and  the 
prophetical  books),  and  the  books  of  the  poets,  they 
might,  according  to  Dillmann,  have  been  referred  to  a 
single  collector,  who  arranged  them  thus  at  one  time. 
He  is,  however,  disturbed  by  the  fact  that  the  third 
division  is  not  restricted  to  poetical  books.  Hence  he 
goes  on  to  say,  "  But  besides  the  books  of  the  poets 
there  are  also  found  in  the  third  portion  of  the  canon 
some  historical  books,  Chronicles  with  Ezra  (including 
Nehemiah)  and  Esther,  and  a  prophetical  book,  Daniel ; 
books,  therefore,  which  according  to  the  above  principle 
of  division  one  would  expect  to  be  in  the  second  portion, 
or  in  the  canon  of  the  prophets." 

Moses  Stuart  claims  that  as  originally  arranged  the 
third  division  of  the  canon  merely  contained  the  poetical 
books.1  He  appeals  in  proof  to  the  son  of  Sirach,  who 
in  his  praise  of  famous  men  speaks  of  prophecies, 
Ecclus.  xliv.  3,  poems,  ver.  5,  and  the  law  of  Moses 
(xlv.  5);  to  Philo,2  who  says  of  the  Therapeutae  that 
"  they  receive  only  the  laws,  and  the  oracles  uttered  by 
the  prophets,  and  the  hymns  and  other  books  by  which 
knowledge  and  piety  are  augmented  and  perfected,"  the 
"other  books"  being  immediately  after  described  as 
"  the  writings  of  ancient  men,  the  leaders  of  their  sect " ; 
to  Luke,  xxiv.  44  "  the  law  of  Moses  and  the  prophets 
and    the    Psalms,"    Psalms   being   here    supposed   to 

1  Old  Testament  Canon,  pp.  248  if.,  292. 

s  De  Vita  Contemplativa ;  this  treatise  is  now  believed  not  to  be  by 
Philo,  but  of  later  date. 


THE  THREEFOLD   DIVISION   OF  THE   CANON       83 

be  used  in  a  wide  sense  to  embrace  all  the  poetical 
books  ;  to  Josephus,  who  after  speaking  of  the  first  and 
second  divisions  of  tho  canon  describes  the  third  by  say- 
ing, "the  other  four  books  contain  hymns  to  God  and 
maxims  of  life  for  men"  ;  and  to  tho  catalogues  of  the 
early  Christian  fathers,  which  in  enumerating  the  books 
of  Scripture  put  all  the  poetical  books  together.  Where- 
upon he  concludes  "that  the  son  of  Sirach,  Philo,  the 
New  Testament,  Josephus,  and  all  the  earlier  Christian 
writers  down  to  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  testify 
in  favor  of  an  arrangement  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
which  classed  four  books  together  that  aro  of  like  com- 
position and  matter  in  some  important  respects,  and  re- 
gards only  these  as  belonging  to  the  Hagiographa.  All 
that  differs  from  this  is  later."  i 

But  the  Christian  catalogues  are  more  or  less  gov- 
erned by  the  fourfold  classification  of  the  Septuagint, 
and  shed  no  light  upon  the  triple  division  of  the  He- 
brew canon.  Josephus  classifies  the  books  for  a  pur- 
pose of  his  own  without  designing  to  give  the  arrange- 
ment in  the  canon.  In  Luke,  xxiv.  44  "  Psalms  "  simply 
means  the  book  so  called,  and  is  not  intended  to  bo 
descriptive  of  a  particular  division  of  the  canon.  And 
the  passages  cited  from  Ecclesiasticus  and  that  relating 
to  the  Therapeutic  simply  speak  of  hymns  and  poems 
among  the  sacred  books  without  implying  anything  as 
to  the  order  of  their  arrangement  in  the  collection. 

The  real  explanation  of  the  whole  matter  is,  as  above 
stated,  that  in  constituting  the  Hebrew  canon  the  books 
were  not  classified  by  the  nature  of  their  contents,  nor 
as  poetry  and  prose,  but  by  the  official  status  of  their 
writers.     The  books  of  Moses  stand  in  the  first  division, 

'The  same  position  substantially  WW  taken  previously  by  Storr  in 
Paulus's  Neues  Repertorium,  II.,  pp.  226  ff.,  as  mentioned  by  Dill- 
mann. 


84  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

those  of  prophets  in  the  second,  those  of  inspired  men 
not  prophets  in  the  third. 

The  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  contain  histories  of 
an  important  period  in  the  life  of  the  chosen  people,  but 
they  were  written  by  the  eminent  men  whose  names  they 
bear.  Ezra  was  a  scribe,  Nehemiah  was  a  governor,  but 
neither  of  them  were  prophets.  Their  books  conse- 
quently could  not  be  classed  with  the  other  historical 
books,  which  were  written  by  prophets,  but  with  the 
books  of  inspired  men  Avho  were  not  prophets.  The 
same  is  the  case  with  Chronicles.  Though  the  history 
which  it  contains  is  closely  related  with  that  found  in 
Samuel  and  Kings,  the  authorship  was  different.  Sam- 
uel and  Kings  wTere,  or  were  believed  to  be,  the  work  of 
prophets,  and  are,  therefore,  classed  as  books  of  proph- 
ets. Chronicles,  it  is  commonly  believed,  is  from  the 
same  pen  as  the  Book  of  Ezra,  by  an  inspired  man, 
but  not  by  a  prophet,  and  its  proper  place  is  accord- 
ingly in  the  third  division. 

The  Book  of  Daniel  appears  at  first  sight  to  create 
some  difficulty,  and  to  be  at  variance  with  the  principle 
of  classification,  which  has  determined  the  disposition 
of  books  in  the  sacred  canon.  Daniel  is  distinctly 
called  a  prophet  in  the  New  Testament  (Matt.  xxiv.  15  ; 
Mark  xiii.  14),  prophetic  visions  were  granted  to  him, 
and  his  book  contains  some  of  the  most  remarkable 
predictions  in  the  Bible.  Why  then  is  not  this  book 
classed  with  the  books  of  the  prophets  in  the  second 
division  of  the  canon,  instead  of  being  ranked  with 
those  of  inspired  men  not  prophets  in  the  third  and 
last   division  ? 1      The   reason   is,   because   this   is   its 

1  Theodorct  censures  the  Jews  for  having  improperly  removed  Dan- 
iel from  among  the  prophets,  Bloch,  Studien,  p.  11.  Ryle,  p.  212, 
quotes  Leusden,  Philologus  Ilehraeus,  and  John  Smith,  Discourse  of 
Prophecy,  as  of  the  same  mind  in  modern  times. 


Till?   THREEFOLD   DIVISION   OF  THE  CANON        86 

proper  place.  This  is  not  a  departure  from  the  prin- 
ciple previously  announced,  but  a  rigorous  carrying  out 
of  that  principle.  A  distinction  must  here  be  made  be- 
tween the  donum  propheticum  or  the  prophetic  gift  and 
the  munus  propheticum  or  the  prophetic  oiHce.  Daniel 
had  the  prophetic  gift  in  a  most  extraordinary  degree, 
but  he  did  not  hold  the  prophetic  office.1  He  did  not 
belong  to  the  prophetic  order  like  his  fellow-captive  and 
contemporary  Ezekiel,  who  dwelt  among  the  exiles  and 
labored  with  them  for  their  spiritual  good.  He  had  a 
different  office  to  perform  on  behalf  of  the  people  at  the 
court  of  Babylon,  where  he  was  ranked  with  the  wise 
men,  and  was  advanced  to  a  high  political  station, 
Officially  he  was  not  a  prophet,  but  occupied  a  lofty 
position  in  the  Babylonian  and  subsequently  in  the 
Persian  empire.  He  is  called  a  prophet  in  the  New 
Testament  in  the  same  general  sense  in  which  that  term 
is  applied  to  David  (Acts  ii.  29,  30). 

Byle 2  calls  this  explanation  of  the  position  of  Daniel 
in  the  canon  "fanciful  trifling"  and  "almost  absurd  in 
its  obvious  inadequacy,"  without  saying  why  he  so  re- 
gards it.  Wildeboer3  and  Buhl4  allege  that  "Amos 
(vii.  12  If.)  overthrows  the  whole  theory ;  for  according  to 
it  his  book  ought  to  stand  among  the  K'thubhim." 
Amos  there  says  that  he  was  no  prophet,  nor  the  son 
of  a  prophet ;  but  Jehovah  took  him  as  he  followed  the 
flock  and  said  unto  him,  Go,  prophesy  unto  my  people 
Israel.  This  call  of  Jehovah  surely  made  him  a  prophet, 
though  he  was  not  one  before. 

Dillmann 5  objects :  "  Did  Daniel  then  receive  his  rev- 

1  So  Witsius,  Hengstenberg,  Havernick,    Keil,   Oehler,    Delitzsch, 

and  others. 

2  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  122,  21  1  note. 

3  Canon  of  O.  T.,  p.  18.  4  Kanon  und  Text  d.  A.  T.,  p.  37 
5  Jahrb.  f .  D.  Th.  III.,  p.  427. 


8G  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

elations  for  himself  alone,  and  not  rather  for  the  Church, 
even  though  that  of  the  future  ?  Was  not  the  duty  and  the 
office  of  publication  in  writing  likewise  obligatory  upon 
him  ?  And  is  then  the  office  of  publication  in  writing  so 
entirely  different  from  that  by  oral  delivery  ?  Is  not  this 
rather  a  wholly  external  distinction,  which  does  not  touch 
the  essence  of  the  matter?  "  But  this  is  entirely  aside 
from  the  question  at  issue.  Whether  it  does  or  does  not 
agree  with  modern  notions  to  make  this  distinction  is  of 
small  consequence.  As  Dillmann  himself  says  in  discuss- 
ing another  aspect  of  this  question,  "  The  Old  Testament 
canon  was  fixed  by  the  Jewish  Church  ...  so  that 
the  only  thing  of  consequence  is,  what  idea  did  the 
Jewish  Church  connect  with  this  division  ?  "  Now  it  is 
unquestionable  that  while  the  term  "  prophet  "  was  fre- 
quently used  in  a  broad  and  general  sense,  and  applied 
to  any  who  were  divinely  inspired,  the  Jews  did  recog- 
nize a  distinct  body  of  men  as  prophets  in  the  strict, 
official  sense,  with  prerogatives  and  functions  peculiarly 
their  own.  And  it  was  the  writings  of  this  class  of  men, 
as  distinguished  from  all  others,  who,  though  truly  in- 
spired, were  not  intrusted  with  these  functions,  that 
were  placed  in  the  second  division  of  the  canon.  The 
Book  of  Daniel  makes  revelations  of  great  importance 
to  his  own  as  well  as  future  ages,  but  does  not  occupy 
itself  with  rebukes  of  sin  or  inculcations  of  duty,  as  is 
usual  in  the  prophets,  or  as  might  be  expected  if  he 
were  directly  charged  with  laboring  for  their  spiritual 
welfare. 

Driver  (p.  509)  calls  attention  to  this  peculiarity  of 
the  book  :  "  It  is  remarkable  also,"  he  says,  "  that  Daniel 
— so  unlike  the  prophets  generally — should  display  no 
interest  in  the  welfare  or  prospects  of  his  contempora- 
ries." From  this  he  draws  the  erroneous  conclusion  that 
the  book  does  not  belong  to  the  period  when  it  claims 


THE  THREEFOLD   DIVISION   OF   THE   CANON       87 

to  have  been  written.  It  did  serve  an  important  pur- 
pose for  that  time  in  letting  tho  people  know  that  the 
glories  of  the  Messianic  period  were  not  to  follow  im- 
mediately upon  the  return  from  tho  exile,  and  giving 
them  an  intimation  of  what  lay  still  before  them  prior 
to  its  arrival.  But  the  marked  difference  between  this 
book  and  those  of  tho  prophets  generally  is  duo  to  tho 
fact  that  the  function  assigned  to  Daniel  differed  from 
that  of  the  prophets. 

The  Book  of  Lamentations  is  in  the  present  arrange- 
ment of  the  Hebrew  Bible  put  in  the  Hagiographa,  but 
there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  it  originally  stood 
in  the  second  division  of  the  canon.  A\Y  Learn  from  tho 
testimony  of  Origen,  Jerome,  and  other  early  writers 
that  Ruth  and  Lamentations  were  sometimes  reckoned 
as  separate  books,  and  sometimes  regarded  simply  as 
appendices  to  other  books,  Until  being  attached  to 
Judges,  and  Lamentations  to  Jeremiah.  Tho  books 
were  so  combined  that  when  Ruth  and  Lamentations 
were  counted  as  separate  books,  the  whole  number 
was  made  out  to  be  twenty-four,  the  number  of  letters 
in  the  Greek  alphabet ;  and  when  they  were  left  un- 
counted, being  regarded  as  included  in  other  books,  the 
whole  number  was  twenty-two,  the  number  of  letters  in 
the  Hebrew  alphabet.1  It  is  natural  to  suppose  that 
the   latter   mode   of  reckoning  was  tho   primitive  ono 

1  Cosin  (Scholastical  History  of  the  Canon,  p.  12,  notch)  qnotes  from 
Sixtns  Senensis  :  "  As  with  the  Hebrews  there  are  22  letters,  in  which 

all  that  can  be  said  and  written  arc  comprehended,  so  there  are  22 
books  in  which  are  contained  all  that  ran  be  known  and  uttered  of  di- 
vine things."  Jerome  expresses  himself  similarly  in  his  PrologOS 
Galeatus:  "As  there  are  22  elements  by  which  we  write  in  Hebrew 
all  that  we  speak,  and  in  them  the  human  voice  is  primarily  embraced! 
so  there  are  reckoned  22  books  in  v  hich  as  in  Letters  and  rudiments 
the  tender  infancy  of  the^jnst  man  is  instructed  in  the  doctrine  of 
God." 


88  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

among  the  Jews ;  and  this  is  the  common  opinion  of 
scholars.  And  if  this  be  so,  the  original  place  of  the 
Lamentations  of  Jeremiah  is  where  we  should  expect  to 
find  it,  in  the  second  division  of  the  canon,  among  the 
productions  of  the  prophets. 

To  this  Strack i  objects  (1)  that  Kuth  and  Lamenta- 
tions are  not  contained  in  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  on 
the  Prophets,  and  consequently  they  could  not  have 
been  in  the  second  division  of  the  canon  when  it  was 
prepared ;  (2)  that  there  is  no  trace  in  the  tradition, 
whether  of  Palestinian  or  Babylonish  Jews,  of  Euth 
having  ever  been  attached  to  Judges  or  Lamentations 
to  Jeremiah  ;  (3)  that  according  to  the  testimony  of  the 
Talmud  (a  Baraitha 2  in  Berachoth)  Psalms,  Proverbs, 
and  Job  were  called  the  three  greater  K'thubhim,  and 
the  Song  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Lamentations 
the  three  smaller  K'thubhim ;  (4)  that  twenty -four  as 
the  number  of  the  sacred  books  is  suggested  by  4  Esdras 
(E.  V.  2  Esdras)  xiv.  44-46,  and  is  uniformly  found  in 
all  Jewish  tradition,  so  far  as  it  is  not  influenced  by  the 
Alexandrians,  there  not  being  the  slightest  trace  of  the 
number  twenty-two  in  either  the  Talmud  or  any  Midrash. 

1  Herzog-Plitt  Encyk.,  VII.,  pp.  433  ff. 

8  Baraitha  means  outside  ;  this  term  is  applied  to  sections  of  the  Tal- 
mud, which  were  not  admitted  to  the  Mishnah,  though  attributed  to  the 
Tannaim  (i.e.  Repeaters)  or  Jewish  doctors  from  the  time  of  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  by  Titus  down  to  and  including  R.  Judah  the 
Holy,  who  reduced  the  Mishnah  (i.e.  Repetition,  viz.,  of  the  Oral 
Law  traditionally  preserved)  to  writing  in  its  present  form  about  the 
end  of  the  second  century  a.d.  The  Baraithas  are  collectively  called 
'hosaphtah,  addition.  These,  with  the  Mishnah,  constitute  the  text  of 
*he  Talmud,  the  comments  upon  which  arc  called  Gemara,  supplement, 
and  make  up  the  remainder  of  that  storehouse  of  Jewish  traditions. 
The  Gemara  is  in  two  forms,  that  of  the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  dating 
from  about  a.d.  425,  and  that  of  the  Babylonish  Talmud,  about  a.d. 
500,  and  is  the  work  of  the  doctors  after  the  closing  of  the  Mish- 
nah, who  are  called  Amoraim  Expounders, 


THE  TIIREEFOLD   DIVISION   OF  THE   CANON       80 

S track's  attempt  to  explain  how  the  number  twenty- 
two  came  into  vogue  in  Alexandria  does  not  seem  to  bo 
successful.  He  thinks  that  the  books  of  tho  Hebrew 
canon  were  there  counted  in  the  order  in  which  they 
appear  in  the  Septuagint  translation.  Until  being  next 
to  Judges,  and  Lamentations  to  Jeremiah ;  these  small 
books  were  hence  considered  as  parts  of  the  larger  ones, 
and  so  the  total  was  made  twenty-two.  But  while  in  tho 
Hebrew,  Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chronicles  aro  each  regard- 
ed as  constituting  one  book,  in  the  LXX.  each  of  them 
is  reckoned  as  two  books ;  and  Ezra  and  Neheiniah  form 
together  one  book  in  Hebrew,  but  each  is  counted  sepa- 
rately in  the  LXX. ;  so  that  the  total  would  be  spoiled. 
Septuagint  influence  cannot,  therefore,  account  for  the 
facts. 

It  appears  to  be  much  simpler  to  trace  the  number 
twenty-two  to  the  current  Jewish  tradition  attested  by 
the  Talmud  (a  Baraitha  in  Baba  Bathra),  that  Ruth  was 
written  by  the  author  of  Judges,  and  Lamentations  by 
Jeremiah.  They  might  thus  be  readily  attached  to  the 
books  which  were  thought  to  have  proceeded  from  the 
same  pen.  That  this  was  the  case  in  Palestine  as  well 
as  Alexandria  is  evidenced  by  Josephus,  Melito,  and 
Jerome  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  Origen  on  the  other. 

Fiirst *  gives  the  following  account  of  the  matter : 
"Besides  this  division  [i.e.,  into  twenty-four  books], 
which  was  sanctioned  in  Talmudic  Judaism,  a  division 
into  twenty-two  books,  parallel  to  the  twenty-two  letters 
of  the  alphabet,  was  in  use  in  Palestine  and  Alexandria. 
.  .  .  The  division  into  twenty-four  seems  to  have 
arisen  in  Babylonia,  and  as  in  all  matters  of  Judaism, 
only  that  which  was  in  use  in  the  Babylon isli  schools 
established  itself  among  the  Jews." 

1  Der  Kanon  des  Alten  Testaments  nach  der  Ueberlieferungen  in  Tal- 
mud und  Midraseh,  p.  4. 


90  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

Block1  truly  says:  "Without  Ruth  the  historical  part 
of  the  canon  of  the  prophets  would  be  incomplete  and 
defective.  It  lacks  the  genealogy  of  the  most  powerful 
race  of  kings,  with  whose  fortunes  also  the  changeful 
past  of  the  people  and  its  glorious  future,  so  eagerly 
and  surely  expected,  was  intimately  interwoven — that  of 
the  house  of  Jesse.  Ewald's  assertion  that  such  a 
genealogy  had  been  contained  in  the  Book  of  Samuel, 
and  was  only  omitted  in  closing  the  canon  of  the  proph- 
ets on  account  of  Ruth  iv.,  is  so  devoid  of  any  scien- 
tific and  tenable  basis  that  we  may  properly  decline 
to  enter  more  particularly  upon  it,  and  the  more  as 
this  assertion  has  as  its  presupposition  the  recep- 
tion of  Ruth  into  the  canon  of  the  prophets.  .  .  . 
Its  transfer  to  the  Hagiographa  did  not  take  place 
until  the  Talmudic  period,  and  then  only  for  liturgical 
reasons." 

Wildeboer  (p.  141)  holds  that,  in  the  first  instance, 
"  Ruth  was  probably  generally  placed  after  Judges  and 
Lamentations  after  Jeremiah  " ;  and  that  this  arrange- 
ment was  perpetuated  in  many  "  copies  of  the  Prophets, 
which  were  more  likely  to  be  in  the  possession  of  private 
individuals  than  copies  of  the  Kethubhim."  The  "  offi- 
cial theory"  of  the  scribes,  however,  was  at  variance 
with  this  popular  usage,  and  classed  them  with  the 
K'thubhim. 

Bleek  2  states,  perhaps  in  too  positive  a  form,  the 
probable  facts  in  the  case :  "  Ruth  and  Lamentations 
had  this  position  [i.e.,  after  Judges  and  Jeremiah]  even 
in  Hebrew  manuscripts  in  early  times,  and  the  Hebrew 
Jews  subsequently,  after  the  second  century  A.D.,  put 
them  among  the  books  of  the  third  class  with  the  other 

1  Studien  zur  Geschicbte  der  Sammlung  der  althebraisehen  Litera- 
tur,  p.  25. 

2  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  18G0,  p.  35. 


THE  THREEFOLD   DIVISION   OF   THE   CANON       01 

Megilloth  with  reference  to  their  use  in  public  wor- 
ship." " 

The  three  divisions  of  the  canon,  accordingly,  contain 
no  indication  of  their  having  been  formed  at  widely 
separated  periods.  There  is  no  imperfection  in  the 
classification  which  requires  such  an  explanation. 
There  are  no  books  in  the  third  division  which  ought 
properly  to  be  in  the  second,  and  which  must  be  as- 
sumed to  have  been  placed  where  they  are,  because  the 
second  division  was  already  closed,  and  could  not  be  re- 
opened for  their  reception.  Such  an  assumption  is  too 
precarious  and  improbable  to  build  a  theory  upon  in 
any  event.  There  is  no  very  intelligible  reason  why 
the  collection  of  the  prophets  should  at  any  time  be 
considered  closed,  except  because  there  was  no  other 
book  entitled  to  be  included  in  it.  If  at  any  time  a 
book  should  be  discovered  or  produced,  which  right- 
fully belonged  in  that  collection,  the  collection  is  thus 
shown  to  be  incomplete  without  this  book,  and  why 
should  it  not  be  placed  there  ?  If,  for  instance,  the 
critical  theory  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  were  correct,  and 
this  book,  though  actually  produced  in  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees,  was  inserted  in  the  canon  because  believed 
to  be  the  genuine  production  of  Daniel,  the  contempo- 
rary of  Ezekiel,  and  the  proper  place  for  such  a  book 
from  such  an  author  was  among  the  prophets,  why  was 
it  not  placed  alongside  of  Ezekiel,  as  it  is  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  where  the  classification  was  upon  a  principle 
which  required  it  ?     It  is  just  because  the  Hebrew  canon 

'In  German  Hebrew  MSS.  and  in  ordinary  Hebrew  Bibles  the  five 
Megilloth  follow  each  other  in  the  order  in  which  they  an-  appointed 
to  be  read  in  the  service  of  the  Synagogue,  viz.  :  the  Song  «>f  Solomon 
at  the  Passover ;  Ruth  at  Pentecost ;  Lamentations  at  the  fast  of  the 
ninth  of  the  month  Ab;  Ecclesiastes  at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles; 
Esther  rt  Purim. 


92  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION" 

was  accurately  classified  upon  a  principle  of  its  own 
that  the  book  stands  where  it  does,  in  the  K'thubhiin 
and  not  among  the  prophets.  And  the  same  is  the  case 
with  the  other  books,  in  which  critics  claim  that  this 
principle  has  been  violated.  It  cannot  be  shown  to 
have  been  departed  from  in  a  single  instance.  The 
classification  is  such  as  bears  the  marks  of  a  single 
mind,  and  has  been  interfered  with  by  no  disturbing 
cause. 


VII 

WHEN    AND    BY    WHOM    COLLECTED 

The  authority  of  the  books  constituting  the  canon 
does  not  depend  upon  their  being  gathered  together  in 
a  single  volume,  or  being  arranged  in  a  particular  way. 
Each  book  would  have  the  same  divine  authority, 
whether  circulating  separately  or  combined  with  others 
of  like  character.  It  was  of  great  importance,  however, 
in  order  to  guard  the  sacred  books  from  the  danger  of 
being  lost  or  overlooked,  or  from  the  intrusion  of  books 
not  entitled  to  be  so  regarded,  that  they  should  be  visi- 
bly sundered  from  all  others  by  being  brought  together 
in  one  collection,  sanctioned  by  general  acceptance  at  a 
time  when  their  claims  could  be  properly  scrutinized, 
and  thus  certified  to  future  ages  as  the  duly  attested 
writings  of  men  inspired  of  God,  and  prepared  by  them 
for  the  benefit  of  his  people  in  all  time  to  come. 

When  and  by  whom  was  this  collection  made  ?  Ac- 
cording to  Elias  Levita,  a  distinguished  rabbi  of  the 
time  of  the  Reformation,  this  was  the  work  of  Ezra 
and  the  Great  Synagogue,  a  body  of  one  hundred  and 
twenty  men,  assembled  to  assist  him  in  the  conduct  of 
public  affairs.1  This  was  repeated  after  him  by  several 
Lutheran  and  Reformed  theologians,  by  whom  it  \\;ts 
regarded  as  an  incontrovertible  fact,  based  on  an  ancient 
and  uniform  tradition.  The  only  passage,  however,  in 
early  Jewish  literature,  which  connects   Ezra  and  the 

1  Straek  (p.  416)  points  out  that  substantially  the  same  view  was? 
previously  held  by  David  Kimehi. 

93 


94  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

Great  Synagogue  in  any  way  with  the  formation  of 
the  canon  is  the  following  from  the  Talmudic  treatise, 
Baba  Bathra : 

"  Moses  wrote  his  book,  and  the  section  about  Balaam 
and  Job  ;  Joshua  wrote  his  book  and  eight  verses  in  the 
law ;  Samuel  wrote  his  book  and  Judges  and  Ruth ; 
David  wrote  the  Book  of  Psalms  at  the  hands  of  the 
ancients,  Adam  the  first,  Melchizedek,  Abraham,  Moses, 
Heman,  Jeduthun,  Asaph  and  the  three  sons  of  Korah ; 
Jeremiah  wrote  his  book  and  the  Book  of  Kings  and 
Lamentations ;  Hezekiah  and  his  associates  wrote  Isaiah, 
Proverbs,  the  Song  of  Songs  and  Ecclesiastes.  The 
men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  wrote  Ezekiel,  the  Twelve 
[Minor  Prophets],  Daniel  and  the  Book  of  Esther. 
Ezra  wrote  his  book  and  the  genealogies  of  Chronicles 
to  his  time." 

This  singular  passage  has  been  variously  interpreted 
and  variously  estimated.  The  word  "  wrote  "  has  been 
understood  to  mean  "composed"  as  an  author,  "tran- 
scribed "  what  had  been  previously  written,  "  reduced 
to  writing  "  what  had  been  orally  delivered,  or  "inserted 
in  the  canon."  Havernick  (p.  41)  gives  it  throughout 
the  last  of  these  senses,  which  was  invented  by 
Bertholdt  (pp.  81,  86),  but  is  wholly  supposititious. 
Herzfeld x  finds  the  four  different  senses  in  different 
clauses  of  this  paragraph. 

The  most  satisfactory  explanation  of  this  passage  is 
given  by  Marx 2  (D  aim  an),  who  finds  in  it  the  views  of 
Jewish  doctors  of  the  second  century  a.d.  respecting  the 
origin  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  which  are 
mere  fanciful  conjectures  and  of  no  value  whatever. 
Jeremiah  is  the  only  one  of  the  latter  prophets  to  whom 
writings  are  attributed,  since  he  is  repeatedly  said  to 

1  Gcschichto,  III.,  p.  94. 

9  Traditio  Rubbinorum  Veterrima,  pp.  41  ff. 


WHEN   AND   BY    WHOM    COLLECTED  95 

have  written  his  prophecies  by  divine  direction  (xxx.  2, 
xxxvi.  2,  4,  28,  32,  xlv.  1).  As  no  similar  statement  is 
made  in  the  case  of  tho  other  prophets,  the  Book  of 
Isaiah  is  ascribed  to  the  associates  of  his  contemporary 
Hezekiah ;  the  same  who  are  said  (Prow  xxv.  1)  to  have 
completed  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  to  which  the  Song  of 
Solomon  and  Ecclesiastes  are  here  added.  Ezekiel,  the 
Twelve,  and  Daniel,  together  with  Esther  are  similarly 
attributed  to  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  ;  the  idea 
probably  being  that  these  books  were  preserved  orally, 
until  by  the  authority  and  under  the  direction  of  these 
two  bodies  they  were  put  in  writing. 

Fiirst  (p.  131)  argues  that  the  "  associates  of  Heze- 
kiah" or,  as  he  denominates  them,  the  "college  of 
Hezekiah,"  in  order  to  do  what  is  here  attributed  to 
them,  must  have  been  a  permanent  body  and  continued 
in  existence  for  280  years,  from  B.C.  724  to  444.  But 
the  Jewish  doctors  had  no  such  thought.  They  did  not 
entertain  the  modern  critical  notions  of  the  composite 
character  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  and  Proverbs,  Canticles 
and  Ecclesiastes  were  believed  by  them  to  be  Solomon's. 
It  is  no  prolonged  task,  therefore,  which  is  assigned  to 
them.  Fiirst  also  maintains,  what  many  others  have 
likewise  held,  that  the  Great  Synagogue  was  an  organi- 
zation which  lasted  for  two  centuries  and  a  half,  from 
B.C.  444  to  106.  There  is  nothing  in  Jewish  tradition 
to  favor  this  opinion  except  tho  fact  that  Simon 
the  Just  is  said  to  have  been  one  of  its  members.  But 
according  to  Jewish  ideas  the  Great  Synagogue  did 
not  last  more  than  forty  years,  and  did  not  extend  be- 
yond the  time  of  Ezra.  Their  chronology  makes 
Simon  the  Just  a  contemporary  of  Alexander  the  Great, 
and  Alexander  the  immediate  successor  of  Darius  Hys- 
taspes. 

It  is  quite  supposable  that  Ezra  might  have  had  a 


96  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

body  of  men  to  aid  him  in  regulating  the  affairs  of  the 
nation,  but  there  seems  to  be  no  clear  evidence  that  such 
a  body  ever  existed.  Kuenen1  maintains  ^  ith  great  plaus- 
ibility that  the  only  historical  basis  for  it  is  the  assem- 
bly of  the  people  (Neh.  viii.-x.),  gathered  to  hear  the 
law  and  pledge  themselves  to  obey  it,  and  that  this  was 
transformed  by  the  Talmudic  doctors  into  an  authori- 
tative council.  Whether  this  is  so  or  not,  there  is  no 
reason  for  attributing  the  collection  of  the  canon  to  the 
Men  of  the  Great  Synagogue. 

According  to  the  theory  of  modern  critics  the  process 
of  canonization  began  in  a  preliminary  way,  B.C.  621, 
when  Josiah  bound  the  people  to  obey  the  book  of  the 
law  found  in  the  temple  (which  they  identify  with 
Deuteronomy  exclusively),  and  more  effectively  when 
Ezra,  B.C.  444,  engaged  the  returned  exiles  to  yield  com- 
pliance to  all  the  requirements  of  the  entire  Pentateuch 
(Neh.  viii.-x.).  The  Pentateuch,  and  that  only,  was 
thenceforward  canonical.  After  a  long  interval  the 
prophets  were  added  to  the  canon,  somewhere  between 
B.C.  300  and  200,  as  the  limits  are  fixed  by  Ryle  (pp. 
108,  109).  Later  still  a  third  division  of  the  canon  was 
formed,  containing  the  K'thubhim.  Its  commencement 
is  dated  by  Ryle  (p.  173),  in  the  beginning  of  the  era  of 
the  Maccabean  ascendency,  B.C.  160  to  140,  and  its  final 
ratification  about  a.d.  90,  although  "all  the  books  in- 
cluded in  the  third  group  of  the  canon  had  obtained 
some  measure  of  recognition,  either  complete  and  un- 
disputed, or  partial  and  disputed  "  before  the  death  of 
John  Hyrcanus  II.,  B.C.  105.  Wildeboer  (p.  146)  brings 
down  the  time  of  the  final  decision  as  to  the  contents  of 
the  canon  to  a.d.  200. 

But  it  is  an  entirely  false  conception  that  Deuter- 

1  Gesammelte  Abhandlungen,  no.  4,  Ueber  die  Manner  der  Grossen 
Synagoge. 


WHEN    AND   BY   WHOM   COLLECTED  97 

onomy  was  first  made  canonical  by  Josiah,  and  the  Pen- 
tateuch by  Ezra.  The  transactions  referred  to  were 
simply  the  solemn  and  formal  recognition  of  a  divine 
authority  inherent  in  these  books  from  their  first  publi- 
cation. And  the  exclusive  mention  of  the  law  in  these 
public  transactions  does  not  prove  that  canonical  and 
divine  authority  was  vested  in  it  alone.  The  contrary 
is  explicitly  declared  by  Deuteronomy  itself  (xviii.  18, 
19),  which  ascribes  to  the  prophets  an  authority  like  that 
of  Moses.  The  law  and  the  prophets  are  joined  together 
(2  Kin.  xvii.  13  ff.),  as  alike  binding  upon  Judah  and 
Israel,  who  were  both  exiled  from  their  land  because 
they  did  not  obey  them.  Ezra,  in  the  very  passage  re- 
cording the  covenant  engagement  of  the  people  to  obey 
the  law,  traces  all  the  calamities  that  had  befallen  them 
to  their  neglect  of  the  law  and  their  maltreatment  of  the 
prophets  (Neh.  ix.  26  ff.).  The  Prophet  Zechariah  does 
the  same  (i.  4,  6,  vii.  7,  12).  These  passages  leave  no 
doubt  that  the  utterances  of  the  prophets  were  believed 
to  have  the  same  divine  sanction  as  the  statutes  of  the 
law,  and  a  like  divine  penalty  followed  the  transgression 
of  the  one  as  of  the  other. 

It  is  not  sufficient,  therefore,  to  say  with  "Wildeboer 
(p.  119)  that  "  before  the  exile  writings  of  the  prophets 
were  eagerly  read  by  the  devout,"  as  well  as  "in  and 
after  the  exile  "  ;  if  at  the  same  time  it  is  maintained 
that  these  books  were  not  then  possessed  of  canonical 
authority.  The  reason  why  they  were  prized  by  pious 
people  was  because  they  accepted  them  as  the  word  of 
God  communicated  through  his  servants  the  prophets. 
Dillmann's  statement  (p.  411)  is  much  nearer  the  truth : 
"  We  can  scarcely  doubt  that  the  higher  reverence, 
which  is  due  to  the  word  of  God,  would  be  paid  also  to 
the  written  discourses  of  a  prophet  by  the  bolievers 
among  his  contemporaries,  at  least  from  the  timo  that 
7 


98  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

he  had  by  his  work  gained  recognition  as  a  prophet  of 
God,  or  his  words  had  been  divinely  confirmed  by  the 
issue.  And  here,  if  anywhere,  it  must  come  to  pass  that 
the  canonical  validity  of  a  writing  would  be  coincident 
with  its  first  appearance." 

This  is  precisely  what  took  place.  The  books  of  the 
prophets  were  received  as  the  word  of  God  by  those 
who  put  faith  in  their  divine  messages  orally  delivered. 
The  suggestion  that  the  number  of  believers  was  at 
times  very  small  and  rarely  included  the  mass  of  the 
people,  and  that  false  prophets  abounded  in  the  later 
years  of  the  kingdom,  in  consequence  of  which  the  in- 
fluence of  the  true  prophets  declined  in  the  popular 
estimation,  does  not  alter  the  significance  of  the  fact 
already  adverted  to.  It  is  to  the  true  worshippers  of 
Jehovah  that  we  are  to  look  for  the  willing  reception 
and  faithful  transmission  of  his  word.  The  books  of  the 
prophets  had,  from  the  first,  canonical  authority  among 
them,  which  is  not  invalidated  by  the  disregard  of  the 
unbelieving  multitude.  And  when  the  twofold  sifting 
of  the  exile  and  of  the  return  from  captivity  had  oc- 
curred, and  a  people  obedient  to  the  word  of  the  Lord 
had  replaced  the  degenerate  race  that  perished  in  the 
destruction  of  the  city,  there  can  be  no  question  in 
what  esteem  the  books  of  the  prophets  were  held,  their 
divine  authority  being  confirmed,  as  it  was,  by  the  fulfil- 
ment of  their  predictions  alike  of  desolation  and  of  re- 
turning favor. 

1.  Why  then  did  Ezra  only  bind  the  people  to  obey 
the  law  ?  1  Because  the  meeting  was  held,  not  to  define 
the  full  extent  of  their  obligations,  but  for  a  particular 

1  It  is  the  law  which  is  exclusively  spoken  of  by  1  Maccabees  as  ad- 
hered to  by  the  faithful  and  forsaken  by  the  godless  (i.  52,  ii.  21,  26, 
27,  etc.).  Yet  no  one  imagines  on  this  account  that  there  were  no 
other  books  in  the  canon  when  1  Maccabees  was  written. 


WHEN   AND   BY    WHOM   COLLECTED  9(J 

practical  purpose,  which  was  best  met  by  directing 
their  attention  to  the  specific  requirements  of  the  law. 
The  obligations  assumed  (Nek  x.  29  ffi.)  concern  the 
removal  of  certain  evils  which  had  made  their  appear- 
ance in  this  infant  community,  viz.,  inter-marriage  with 
aliens,  disregard  of  the  sabbath  and  inadequate  pro- 
vision for  the  temple  worship.  There  were  definite 
legal  statutes  bearing  on  these  matters  which  covered 
the  wdiole  case.  The  more  general  and  spiritual  in- 
structions of  the  prophets  would  not  so  precisely  have 
answered  the  end  in  view.1 

2.  As  the  Samaritans  possess  the  Pentateuch,  but  no 
other  book  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  has  been  argued 
that  nothing  but  the  Pentateuch  could  have  been  canon- 
ical among  the  Jews  at  the  time  that  it  was  obtained 
by  the  Samaritans.  It  is  commonly  supposed  to  have 
been  taken  to  them  by  the  renegade  priest,  who  was 
expelled  by  Nehemiah  (Neh.  xiii.  28),  and  eagerly  ac- 
cepted by  them  to  substantiate  their  claim  of  being 
kindred  to  the  Jews  (Ezra  iv.  2) ;  a  claim,  which  would 
have  been  strengthened  by  accepting  all  the  books  that 
were  then  regarded  as  sacred..  But  the  mutilated  canon 
of  the  Samaritans  had  a  similar  origin  with  those  of 
early  heretical  sects  in  the  Christian  Church.  They  ac- 
cepted what  suited  their  own  peculiar  views,  and  arbi- 
trarily rejected  all  the  rest.  They  had  their  temple  on 
Mount  Gerizim,  and  altered  the  text  of  Deut.  xxvii.  4  to 
give  it  sanction,  claiming  that  this  was  the  place  where 
men  ought  to  worship.  No  book  which  spoke  approv- 
ingly of  worship  at  Shiloh  or  Jerusalem  could  bo  ac- 

1  This  is  recognized  by  Wildeboer  (p.  119),  though  colored  by  a 
wrong  idea  of  the  design  of  this  solemn  covenant,  whon  he  traces  the 
omission  of  the  prophets  in  this  sacred  engagement  u  chiefly  to  the 
fact  that  they  have  not  the  same  immediate  importance  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  Ezra's  theocracy  as  the  priestly  law." 


100  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION" 

cepted  by  them.  They  were  thus  necessarily  limited  to 
the  Pentateuch,  irrespective  of  the  extent  of  the  Jewish 
canon  at  the  time. 

3.  The  Scripture  lessons  of  the  Synagogue  were  orig- 
inally taken  exclusively  from  the  Pentateuch,  which  is 
divided  into  sections  that  are  read  in  course  on  succes- 
sive sabbaths ;  at  a  later  time  selections  from  the  proph- 
ets were  read  along  with  the  law  (Luke  iv.  16,  17,  Acts 
xiii.  15,  27)  ;  but  a  like  use  is  not  made  of  the  K'thu- 
bhim  in  the  regular  sabbath  lessons.  This  has  been  urged 
as  confirmatory  of  the  critical  hypothesis  that  the  three 
divisions  of  the  canon  mark  three  successive  stages  in 
its  formation.  It  is  alleged  that  the  Scripture  reading 
was  in  the  first  instance  confined  to  the  law,  because  it 
alone  was  canonical.  Afterward,  when  the  prophets 
were  admitted  to  the  canon,  lessons  were  taken  from 
them  likewise;  and  the  selection  was  limited  to  the 
prophets,  because  the  K'thubhim  had  not  yet  been  made 
canonical. 

This,  however,  is  not  the  real  explanation.  Nor  is  it 
to  be  sought  in  an  imagined  difference  in  the  sacredness 
and  authority  of  the  three  portions  of  the  canon.  The 
idea  of  three  successive  grades  of  inspiration,  and 
the  comparison  of  the  law  to  the  holy  of  holies,  of  the 
prophets  to  the  holy  place,  and  the  K'thubhim  to  the 
outer  court,  are  figments  of  later  times.1 

As  Jehovah's  covenant  relation  with  Israel  rested  upon 
the  basis  of  the  law,  and  was  conditioned  upon  its  faith- 
ful observance,  it  is  natural  that  from  the  very  first  in- 
stitution of  synagogue  worship  it  should  have  a  place  in 
the  service.     It  would  not  be  long,  however,  before  the 

1  "  Their  equal  sanctity  and  dignity  was  expressly  maintained  with 
great  emphasis  with  particular  reference  to  those  heretics  who  did  not 
regard  the  Prophets  and  Hagiographa  as  Tliora  or  canonical."  Fiirst, 
Kanon,  pp.  51,  G9. 


WHEN  AND   BY   WHOM   COLLECTED  101 

need  would  be  felt  of  enforcing  the  lessons  of  the  law 
by  the  teachings  of  the  prophets.  Their  historical  books 
record  the  experience  of  the  people  in  former  ages,  show- 
ing the  blessing  that  attended  obedience  and  the  penalty 
that  followed  transgression.  Their  books  of  prophecy 
insist  upon  adherence  to  the  true  worship  ol*  Jehovah,  il- 
lustrate and  expound  the  spiritual  intent  of  the  law,  and 
hold  up  to  view  the  final  issue  to  which  it  tends.  A\'e 
are  imperfectly  informed  as  to  the  use  made  of  the 
K'thubhim  in  the  service  of  the  Synagogue  in  early 
times.  Their  employment,  to  some  extent  at  least,  for 
this  purpose,  is  suggested  by  the  fact  that  a  Targum  on 
Job  is  spoken  of  which  was  of  equal  age  with  that  of 
Jonathan  on  the  prophets.  In  general,  however,  the 
books  of  the  K'thubhim  were  less  adapted  for  Synagogue 
use  or  were  appropriated  to  special  services.  The  psalms 
were  sung  in  the  temple  (Ps.  xcii.  according  to  its  title 
on  the  sabbath ;  and  Pss.  xxiw,  xlviii.,  xciv.,  xciii.  ac- 
cording to  the  LXX.  were  appointed  for  different  days  of 
the  week).  The  five  Megilloth  were  assigned  to  festival 
days.  Selections  from  the  Hagiographa,  from  Job, 
Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Chronicles,  Daniel,  Proverbs,  etc.,  were 
read  throughout  the  entire  night  before  the  day  of 
atonement,1  and  in  connection  with  the  smaller  Penta- 
teuch sections  on  Mondays  and  Thursdays  and  at  the 
vesper  service  on  the  sabbath.2  The  Synagogue  lessons 
are  readily  accounted  for,  therefore,  without  resorting 
to  the  critical  hypothesis. 

4.  The  terms  "  the  law  "  (John  x.  34,  xii.  34,  xv.  25 ; 
1  Cor.  xiv.  21),  or  "the  law  and  the  prophets  "  (2  Mace. 
xv.  9 ;  Matt.  v.  17,  vii.  12,  xxii.  40  ;  Luke  xvi.  16,  29,  31 ; 
Acts  xxviii.  23 ;  Kom.  iii.  21),  are  sometimes  used  to  de- 

1  Bloch,   Studien,  p.    10;  Furst,  Kanou,  p.  52;    Buhl,  Kanon  und 
Text,  p.  15. 
8  Furst,  p.  82. 


102  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

note  the  entire  Old  Testament.  It  is  claimed  that  this 
is  a  reminiscence  of  the  time  when  first  "  the  law  "  and 
afterward  "  the  law  and  the  prophets  "  comprised  the 
entire  canon.  But  the  simple  reason  of  this  usage  is 
that  all  the  Scriptures  may,  with  propriety,  be  called 
"the  law  "  since  they  constitute  the  revealed  and  author- 
itative will  of  God.  And  "  the  law  and  the  prophets  " 
may  either  be  put  for  the  entire  Old  Testament  by  syn- 
ecdoche, a  principal  part  standing  for  the  whole,  or  the 
prophets  may  be  used  in  a  wide  sense  for  all  the  writ- 
ings of  inspired  men,  as  in  Mat.  xiii.  35  a  Psalm  of 
Asaph,  Ps.  lxxviii.  2,  is  quoted  "as  spoken  by  the 
prophet."  l  Cf.  Heb.  i.  1.  Moses  is  also  called  a  prophet 
(Hos.  xii.  13),  and  an  enactment  of  the  law  is  attributed 
to  the  prophets  (Ezra  ix.  11,  12). 

Accordingly,  Bloch  (pp.  8,  15)  modifies  the  critical 
argument,  and  as  the  entire  Scriptures  may  be  called  in- 
differently "  law  "  or  "  prophets  "  or  "  sacred  writings,"  he 
infers  that  these  titles  are  not  in  themselves  distinctive, 
and  could  not  have  been  employed  as  designations  of 
the  three  several  portions  of  the  canon,  if  this  division 
had  been  made  at  any  one  time.  It  was  only  because 
"  law"  had  acquired  a  technical  sense  by  a  long  and  ex- 
clusive application  to  the  books  of  Moses,  that  subse- 
quent additions  to  the  canon  could  be  called  "prophets"; 
and  this  term  was  long  applied  to  a  definite  number  of 
books  before  it  acquired  its  special  sense,  so  that  others 
subsequently  introduced  could  distinctively  be  called 
"k'thubhim  "  or  "sacred  writings."  But  this  form  of  the 
argument  is  no  more  valid  than  the  other.  Although 
these  terms  admit  of  a  wider  application,  it  is  plain  that 
"  law  "  and  "  prophets  "  in  their  strict  sense  are  properly 

1  In  Jewish  writings  the  Hagiographa  are  frequently  referred  to 
prophets  in  this  wide  sense,  Herzfeld,  Geschichte,  III.,  pp.  98,  99; 
Bloch,  Studien,  p.  12 ;  Buhl,  Kanon  und  Text,  p.  37. 


WHEN  AND   BY   WHOM    COLLECTED  103 

descriptive  of  those  portions  of  the  canon  to  which  they 
are  applied,  while  K'thubhim,  as  a  distinct  title,  nat- 
urally denotes  those  sacred  writings  which  fall  under 
neither  of  the  above  categories. 

5.  Some  additional  arguments  in  defence  of  the  posi- 
tion that  the  prophets  were  not  admitted  to  the  canon 
until  long  after  the  public  recognition  of  the  law  in  the 
time  of  Ezra,  are  built  upon  unsound  critical  conclu- 
sions. Thus  (1),  it  has  been  inferred  from  apparent  dis- 
crepancies between  Samuel  and  Kings,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  Chronicles  on  the  other,  that  the  former  could  not 
yet  have  been  regarded  as  canonical  circ.  300  B.C.,  when 
it  is  alleged  that  Chronicles  was  written.1  But  the  in- 
ference is  futile  for  two  reasons :  Chronicles  does  not 
discredit  Samuel  and  Kings,  as  is  here  assumed,  nor 
does  it  belong  to  so  late  a  date,  as  has  been  before 
shown.  The  differences  referred  to  arise  from  the  differ- 
ence in  the  aim  and  scope  of  these  histories  respectively. 
Chronicles,  which  was  probably  written  by  Ezra,  though 
referred  by  critics  without  reason  to  a  century  or  more 
after  his  time,  is  largely  occupied  with  matters  con- 
nected with  the  ritual  service,  which  was  then  being  re- 
stored, but  to  which  the  earlier  histories  paid  much  less 
attention.  These  additional  facts  are  drawn  from  other 
reliable  authorities,  and  the  seeming  discrepancies  can 
be  satisfactorily  explained. 

(2.)  The  Book  of  Isaiah  is,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
critics,  a  composite  production.  A  considerable  por- 
tion of  chs.  i.-xxxv.  is  assigued  to  Isaiah,  but  interspersed 
with  several  sections  of  varying  length,  which  are  at- 
tributed to  the  later  years  of  the  Babylonish  exile  or 
shortly  after  it.  Then  follow  four  historical  chapters, 
chs.  xxxvi.-xxxix. ;  and  finally,  chs.  xl.-lxvi.,  which  are  al- 

1  Ryle,  Canon,  p.  108 ;  Konig,  Einleitung,  p.  448. 


104  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

leged  to  belong  to  near  the  close  of  the  exile.  Here 
Ryle  concludes  (p.  104)  that  the  compilation  of  chs. 
i.-xxxix.  took  place  a  short  time  "  before  the  period  of 
Nehemiah  "  (b.c.  444),  but  that  chs.  xl.-lxvi.,  though  not 
of  so  late  a  date  as  some  of  the  preceding  chap- 
ters, could  only  have  been  added  a  century  and  a 
half  later  (see  p.  113),  "when  the  recollection  of  the 
authorship  of  this  section  having  been  forgotten,  it 
could,  not  unnaturally,  be  appended  to  the  writings  of 
Isaiah."  So  the  critics  first  dissect  Isaiah,  and  then 
find  it  impossible  to  get  the  disjointed  pieces  together 
again  without  putting  the  collection  of  the  canon  at  a 
date  at  variance  with  historical  testimony  and  every  re- 
liable indication  bearing  on  the  subject.  It  is,  indeed, 
a  puzzling  question  which  the  critics  have  to  solve,  and 
to  which  no  satisfactory  answer  can  be  given,  how  it 
came  to  pass  that  this  prince  of  prophets,  living,  as  we 
are  told,  near  the  end  of  the  exile,  whose  predictions  of 
the  coming  deliverance  and  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  temple  were  so  strikingly  fulfilled,  and  who  must 
have  stirred  the  souls  of  the  exiles  to  an  unwonted  de- 
gree with  his  own  glowing  enthusiasm,  could  be  so  utter- 
ly unknown,  and  not  only  his  name,  but  his  very  exist- 
ence so  entirely  forgotten,  that  his  prophecies  were 
attributed  to  another,  who  lived  at  a  different  period 
of  time,  and  under  entirely  different  circumstances. 
But  if  the  exigencies  of  the  critical  hypothesis  de- 
mand a  long  interval  to  account  for  this  complete 
oblivion,  does  it  follow  that  the  recognition  of  the  di- 
vine authority  of  this  magnificent  prophecy  was  so 
delayed  ? 

(3.)  It  has  been  claimed l  that  Zech.  ix.-xiv.  was  not 

1  Dillmann,  p.  450  ;  Ryle,  p.  10G,  who  nevertheless,  p.  101,  quotes 
Zech.  xiii.  3  as  the  language  of  Zechariah.  Strack,  Real-Eneyk.,  vii., 
p.  422. 


WHEN   AND   BY    WHOM   COLLECTED  106 

written  by  Zechariah,  but  by  some  unknown  prophet, 

and  was  placed  at  the  end  of  the  Minor  Prophets  before 
Malachi  had  been  added  to  the  collection.  It  would 
thus  stand  immediately  after  Zechariah,  and  so  came  ul- 
timately to  be  attached  to  that  book.  This  is  urged  as 
showing  that  the  canon  was  formed  by  a  gradual  pro 
But  if  all  this  were  so,  it  would  only  prove  that  the 
canon  was  formed  and  the  collection  of  Minor  Prophets 
made  before  Malachi  was  written,  to  which,  of  course, 
it  was  then  immediately  added;  and  it  effectually  dis- 
poses of  those  critical  conjectures  which  would  put  Joel, 
Jonah  or  Zech.  ix.-xiv.  after  the  time  of  Malachi 

(4.)  The  critics  fix  the  final  closing  of  the  collection 
of  the  prophets  by  their  notion  of  the  time  when  the 
Book  of  Daniel  was  written.  Thus  Wildeboer  (p.  110) : 
"At  what  time  the  division  of  the  prophets  was  closed 
we  are  not  informed.  But  on  account  of  Dan.  ix.  2,  win  >s<  i 
author,  living  about  1G5  B.C.,  seems  to  know  '  the  books' 
as  a  collection  with  definite  limits,  and  because  the 
Book  of  Daniel  itself  was  unable  to  obtain  a  place  in 
the  second  section,  we  fix  as  a  terminus  ad  quern  about 
200  B.C."  1  But  we  have  already  seen  that  the  Book  of 
Daniel  has  its  rightful  place  in  the  third  division  of  the 
canon,  uninfluenced  by  the  cpiestion  whether  at  the  time 
of  its  insertion  the  second  division  was  open  or  closed  ; 
and  that  the  date,  which  the  critics  assign  to  the  book, 
is  determined  by  presuppositions  in  regard  to  miracles 
and  prophecy,  which  we  do  not  share;  and  thai  apart 
from  these  presuppositions  there  is  no  valid  reason  for 
discrediting  the  claim  which  it  makes  for  itself,  conT 
firmed  by  the  belief  of  all  past  ages  and  by  the  testi- 
mony of  our  Lord,  that  its  author  was  no  other  than 
Daniel  himself. 

(5.)  Wildeboer  tells  us  (p.  123) :  "  When  the  conscious. 

»  So  Ryle,  p.  112. 


106  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

ness  had  become  general  that  no  more  prophets  would 
appear,  the  prophetic  writings  were  collected  and  added 
to  the  collection  of  the  Nebiim  [historical  books  of  the 
prophets],  which  had  been  in  existence  since  the  days  of 
Nehemiah.  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  memory  of  the 
interval  between  the  canonization  of  the  historical 
books  and  of  the  prophetic  writings  proper  is  perpetu- 
ated by  the  order  of  the  two  groups  of  books  and  by 
the  appellation  based  upon  it,  Former  and  Latter 
Prophets."  This  idea  that  prophetic  writings  were  not 
regarded  as  canonical,  until  there  were  no  longer  any 
prophets  among  the  people,  is  as  arbitrary  and  un- 
founded as  the  opposite  opinion,  which  figures  so 
largely  in  the  reasonings  of  the  critics  that  "  the  incor- 
poration of  recent  or  almost  contemporary  work  in  the 
same  collection  with  the  older  prophets "  would  not 
have  been  approved.1  The  living  prophet  did  not  su- 
persede his  predecessor  of  a  former  age,  nor  did  the 
older  prophets  dimmish  the  authority  or  destroy  the 
value  of  those  of  recent  date.  The  question  was  one  of 
divine  commission  and  authority,  not  of  antiquity,  nor 
of  the  form  of  delivery,  whether  oral  or  written. 

"We  have  now  reviewed  all  the  considerations  of  any 
moment,  that  are  urged  by  the  critics  in  defence  of  their 
position,  that  the  books  of  the  prophets  were  not  ad- 
mitted to  the  canon  until  long  after  the  public  recogni- 
tion of  the  binding  obligation  of  the  law  in  the  time  of 
Ezra.  And  we  have  found  nothing  to  militate  against 
the  belief  that  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  delivered 
to  the  people  as  a  declaration  of  the  divine  will,  pos- 
sessed canonical  authority  from  the  moment  of  their 
appearance.  Thus  the  canon  grew  with  each  successive 
issue,  until  the  last  was  published,  when  the  canon  was 
complete.     The  second  division  of  the  canon  was  ac- 

1  Ryle,  Canon,  p.  10G. 


WHEN   AND   BY    WnOM   COLLECTED  K)7 

cordingly  completed  by  Malaclii,  the  last  of  the  proph- 
ets who  was  a  contemporary  of  Nehemiah. 

How  was  it  with  the  K'thubhim?  It  has  been  main- 
tained1 (1)  that  uo  steps  were  taken  toward  the  forma- 
tion of  a  third  division,  and  none  of  the  books  found  in 
it  were  admitted  to  the  canon  until  the  second  division 
had  first  been  closed.  And  this,  it  is  alleged,  could  not 
have  taken  place  until  a  considerable  time  after  Malaclii, 
when  the  general  conviction  had  been  reached  that 
prophecy  had  altogether  ceased,  and  no  more  prophets 
were  to  be  expected.  This  is  argued  on  the  ground  that 
Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Chronicles  would  have  been  put 
in  the  same  division  with  the  other  historical  books 
such  as  Samuel  and  Kings,  and  Daniel  with  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel,  if  that  division  had  not  been  al- 
ready closed,  when  they  were  accepted  as  canonical. 
But  it  has  already  been  shown  that  in  the  Hebrew 
canon  the  books  are  not  classified  according  to  the  char- 
acter of  their  contents,  but  by  the  official  status  of  their 
authors.  Books  written  by  prophets  stand  in  the  sec- 
ond division ;  those  written  by  inspired  men,  not  belong- 

1  So  Bertholdt,  p.  81;  DeWette,  £  13;  Robertson  Smith,  p.  179. 
Dillmann,  pp.  455,  460,  distinguishes  between  the  older  K'thubhim,  as 
Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job,  and  the  Song  of  Solomon,  and  the  more  recent, 
as  Chronicles  with  Ezra,  Esther,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Daniel.  The 
former  were,  in  his  opinion,  held  in  very  high  esteem  from  the  early 
period  after  the  exile,  but  were  not  yet  in  the  full  sense  of  the  word 
canonical.  Bleck  (pp.  666-668)  holds  this  same  view  with  regard  to  the 
Psalms,  but  is  more  doubtful  about  Proverbs,  Job.  and  the  Song  of  Solo- 
mon, although  he  believes  that  they  were  then  undoubtedly  in  existence. 
Ryle  (p.  121)  thinks  that  some  of  the  K'thubhim  were  "an  informal 
appendix  to  the  canon  of  the  law  and  the  prophets  "  prior  to  their  own 
canonization.  Wildeboer  says  (p.  138):  "  Probably  most  of  the  Ke- 
thubhim  were  already  in  existence  when  the  prophets  were  canonized," 
and  "many  of  them  were  originally  united  with  prophetic  books. 
When  the  earlier  scribes  secured  canonical  authority  for  the  prophets, 
*  the  rest  of  the  books  *  remained  as  a  group  of  indefinite  extent." 


108  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

ing  to  the  prophetic  order  in  its  strict  and  proper 
sense,  were  assigned  to  the  third  division.  There  is  no 
need,  therefore,  for  assuming  that  the  prophets  were 
closed  and  could  not  be  reopened,  when  these  books 
were  introduced  into  the  canon,  in  order  to  account  for 
the  position  which  they  occupy. 

(2.)  It  is  asserted  that  several  of  the  X'thubhim  are  of 
much  later  date  than  the  time  of  Ezra,  and  particularly 
that  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  not  written  until  B.C.  168 
or  167.1  It  has  already  been  shown  that  this  assertion 
is  unfounded.  The  time  allowed  for  a  book  to  gain 
credence,  which  first  made  its  appearance  in  the  period 
of  the  Maccabees,  but  claimed  to  be  the  work  of  the 
Prophet  Daniel,  who  lived  three  centuries  and  a  half 
before,  is  remarkably  short.  Mattathias,  who  died  B.C. 
167,  encouraged  his  sons  by  examples  drawn  from  this 
book,  Hananiah,  Mishael,  and  Azariah  in  the  fiery  fur- 
nace and  Daniel  in  the  den  of  lions  (1  Mace.  ii.  59,  60). 
There  is  also  a  plain  reference  to  Dan.  ix.  27,  xii.  11 
in  1  Mace.  i.  54.  And  in  B.C.  130,  as  attested  by  the 
Prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus,  all  the  books  of  the  canon 
had  been  translated  into  Greek,  and  Daniel,  of  course, 
among  them.  And  according  to  the  uniform  admission 
of  all  the  critics,  this  book  would  not  have  found  ad- 
mission to  the  canon  if  it  had  not  been  believed  to  be 
the  genuine  work  of  the  Prophet  Daniel. 

(3.)  In  the  order  of  books  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  Chron- 
icles2 stands  last,  and  is  preceded  by  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah.  As  Ezra  is  supposed,  not  without  reason,  to 
have  been  a  continuation  of  Chronicles,  it  is  argued  that 
Ezra  must  have  been   separated  and  admitted  to  the 


1  So  Driver:   Kyle,  p.  112,  and  Wildeboer,  pp   27,  143,  say  B.C.  165. 

2  In  the  Massoretic  arrangement  Chronicles  is  the  first  book  of  the 
K'thubhim. 


WHEN   AND   BY   WHOM   COLLECTED  109 

canon  before  Chronicles  was  received.1  But  there  is 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  order  of  these  books  in- 
dicates the  order  of  their  reception  into  the  canon.  If 
that  had  been  so,  Daniel  should  have  stood  last  accord- 
ing to  the  critical  hypothesis  of  its  origin.  In  the 
K'thubhim  the  three  large  books,  Psalms.  Proverbs,  Job, 
stand  first,  then  the  five  Megilloth,  then  Daniel,  Ezra, 
Nehemiah  in  chronological  order,  and  finally  Chroni- 
cles as  a  sort  of  historical  appendix,  reviewing  the  en- 
tire period  from  the  creation  to  the  end  of  the  exile. 

(4.)  Dillmann  (p.  483)  argues  that  the  additions  to 
Esther  and  Daniel  in  the  Greek,  and  the  recasting  of 
Chronicles  and  Ezra  in  the  apocryphal  Esdras  show  that 
these  books  were  not  regarded  as  inviolable  as  the  la-w- 
and the  prophets.  But  the  legends  connected  with  the 
law  in  the  later  Targums prove  that  its  canonical  author- 
ity was  no  bar  to  imaginative  additions  suited  to  the 
popular  taste.  And  it  is  not  strange  that  histories  so 
remarkable  as  those  of  Esther  and  Daniel  should  be 
particularly  alluring  to  those  who  were  given  to  flights 
of  fancy. 

There  is  nothing  in  all  this  to  support  the  contention 
of  the  critics  that  the  three  divisions  of  the  canon  repre- 
sent three  distinct  collections  made  at  widely  separated 
periods ;  and  nothing  to  weaken  the  evidence  afforded 
by  the  orderly  distribution  of  books  into  classes,  that 
the  arrangement  was  made  at  some  one  time  and  upon 
a  definite  plan. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  canonization  of  books 
is  not  to  bo  confounded  with  their  collection.  Books 
wrere  not  made  canonical  by  the  act  of  some  public 
authority,  such  as  a  decision  rendered  in  their  favor  by 
an  assembly  of  scribes  or  doctors  or  a  general  council 

1  This  notion  is  distinctly  rejected  by  Buhl,  Kanon  und  Text,  p.  39. 


110  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

of  the  nation.  This  would  be  to  attribute  to  the  Jewish 
Church  in  its  organized  capacity  a  power  which  even 
Bellarmin,1  disposed  as  he  was  to  magnify  ecclesiastical 
prerogatives  to  the  utmost,  did  not  venture  to  claim  for 
the  Christian  Church.  The  canon  does  not  derive  its 
authority  from  the  Church,  whether  Jewish  or  Christian ; 
the  office  of  the  Church  is  merely  that  of  a  custodian 
and  a  witness.  The  collection  of  the  canon  is  simply 
bringing  together  into  one  volume  those  books  whose 
sacred  character  has  already  secured  general  acknowl- 
edgment. And  the  universal  acceptance  of  the  collec- 
tion at  the  time,  and  subsequently,  shows  that  it  truly 
represents  the  current  belief  of  the  Jewish  people, 
formed  when  they  were  still  under  prophetic  guidance.2 

'"Ecclesiam  nullo  modo  posse  facere  librum  canonicum  de  non 
canonico,  nee  contra,  sed  tantuni  declarare,  quis  sit  habendus  canoni- 
cus,  et  hoc  non  temere,  nee  pro  arbitratu,  sed  ex  veterum  testimoniis 
et  similitudine  librorum,  de  quibus  ambigitur,  cum  illis  de  quibus  non 
ambigitur,  ac  demun  ex  communi  sensu  et  quasi  gustu  populi  Chris- 
tian!." — Bellarmin,  De  Verbo  Dei,  Lib.  I.,  c.  10,  n.  16. 

2  Wildeboer  (p.  165)  concludes  his  dissertation  by  what  seems  like  a 
claim  of  orthodox  endorsement  of  the  modern  critical  theory  of  the 
canon :  "As  long  ago  as  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century,  a 
learned  and  pious  German  theologian,  and  a  champion  of  orthodoxy 
too,  wrote  these  true  words  :  '  Canon  non  uno,  quod  dicunt,  actu  ab 
hominibus,  sed  paulatim  a  Deo,  animorum  temporumque  rectore,  pro- 
ductus  est.' "  This  same  passage  had  been  before  quoted  by  Strack, 
and  from  him  adopted  by  Driver,  p.  x,  and  by  Ryle  conspicuously 
placed  opposite  the  title-page  as  the  motto  of  his  volume.  It  is  an  ab- 
solute perversion  of  Loescher's  meaning  to  represent  his  word?  as  in 
any  way  sanctioning  the  critical  theory  that  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment only  attained  canonical  authority  by  slow  degrees  centuries  after 
they  were  written,  and  that  this  was  first  given  to  them  by  some  public 
official  act,  successively  performed  for  each  of  the  divisions  of  the 
canon.  The  entire  passage,  from  which  the  words  above  cited  are 
taken,  reads  as  follows  (Keil's  Introduction,  2d  Ed.,  Eng.  Trans.,  II., 
p.  152)  :  "There  existed  from  the  age  of  Moses  canonical  books,  from 
their  internal  light  and  dignity  esteemed  as  divine  from  their  first  ap- 
pearance, which  were  laid  up  in  the  former  temple  in  the  ark  of  the 


WHEN    AND   BY    WHOM   COLLECTED  111 

We  Lave  no  positive  information  when  <>l-  by  whom 

the  sacred   Looks   were   collected    and    arranged.     The 
canon    was    completed    by    Malachi,    the    last    of    the    ; 
prophets,  probably  about  425  B.O.     The  first  authentic  f 
statement  on  the  subject  after  this  time  is  found  in  the 
Prologue  to  Ecelesiasticus,  which  was  written  about  132 
B.C.1     It  is  there  spoken  of  as  a  definite  and  well-known 

covenant.  To  these  others,  recognized  as  divine  from  the  time  that  they 
were  written  and  publicly  rend,  were  gradually  added,  not  by  the  .imm- 
inent of  Ezra  or  the  Synagogue,  or  In  decrees  of  Council  or  Synod 
(Sanhedrim),  but  by  the  universal  acceptance  ami  usage  of  tin-  whole 
Church,  until  by  the  Book  of  Malachi  the  canon  was  dosed.  For 
prophets  ceased  at  that  time,  the  use  of  the  sacred  tongue  ceased,  in 
place  of  which  the  language  of  the  Targnms,  the  Greek,  and  tin-  Rab- 
binical were  substituted.  Hence  the  ancient  Jewish  Church  acknowl- 
edged none  of  the  books  written  afterward  as  divine  and  belonging  to 
the  Mikdash  (Sanctuary) ;  and  so  the  canon  itself  was  prod ireed,  not  hi/ 
one  act  of  men,  so  to  speak,  but  gradually  by  God,  who  controls  winds 
and  seasons." 

1  The  date  assigned  to  this  Prologue  and  to  the  Book  of  Ecelesias- 
ticus, to  which  it  is  prefixed,  depends  upon  the  statement  in  the  Prologue 
that  the  writer  of  it  came  into  Egypt  "in  the  thirty-eighth  year  in  the  reign 
of  Euergetes."  There  were  two  kings  of  this  name  in  Egypt,  Ptolemy 
Euergetes  I.,  who  reigned  twenty-five  years,  b.c.  246-221,  and  Ptol- 
emy Physcon,  who  also  gave  himself  the  cognomen  of  Euergetes 
II.,  and  who  reigned  twenty-nine  years,  b.c.  145-116.  A  clew  has  also 
been  sought  in  what  is  said  of  "  Simon,  the  high-priest,  the  son  of 
Onias  "  (Ecclus.  1).  Singularly  enough  there  were  also  two  of  this  name 
who  filled  the  office  of  high-priest,  Simon  I.,  b.c.  300-287,  and  Simon 
II.,  b.c.  226-198.  Two  different  views  have  accordingly  been  taken  of 
the  date  of  the  Prologue.  One,  that  Euergetes  I.  is  intended,  and  the 
thirty-eighth  year  of  the  writer's  life,  so  that  the  Prologue  must  have 
been  written  somewhere  between  b.c  246  and  221,  and  the  Book  of 
Ecelesiasticus  about  fifty  years  earlier.  The  other  and  more  com- 
monly received  view  is  based  on  the  fact  that  Euergetes  II.  was  for  a 
time  associated  in  the  kingdom  with  his  brother  Ptolemy  Philometor. 
If  his  reign  is  reckoned  from  b.c.  170,  the  beginning  of  this  joint 
sovereignty,  his  thirty-eighth  year  will  be  B.C.  132.  The  form  of  ex- 
pression employed  to  denote  the  thirty-eighth  year  of  EucnMes, 
though  unusual,  has  analogies  in  Hag.  i.  1 ;  Zech.  i.  7,  vii.  1 ;  1  Mace, 
xiv.  27. 


112  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

I  body  of  writings  in  three  divisions,  severally  denomi- 
nated "  the  law  and  the  prophets  and  the  rest  of  the 
books."  When  and  by  whom  they  were  collected  the 
writer  does  not  state,  bnt  it  must  have  been  before  the 
time  of  his  grandfather,  Jesus,  the  son  of  Sirach,  circ. 
B.C.  180,  who  was  the  author  of  the  book,  and  of  whom 
he  speaks  as  a  diligent  reader  of  "the  law  and  the 
prophets  and  the  other  books  of  the  fathers." 

The  critics  are  at  great  pains  to  weaken  the  force  of 
this  testimony  to  the  third  division  of  the  canon.  Thus 
Dillmann  (p.  478)  :  "  At  that  time  a  third  series  of  highly 
prized  writings  had  already  been  formed,  which  about 
corresponds  with  our  third  canon.  But  that  this  series 
contained  only  and  entirely  the  same  books,  which 
stand  in  our  third  canon,  can  never  be  proved  from  these 
expressions,  and  therefore  the  passage  cannot  avail  as  a 
witness  for  a  closed  canon."  Ryle  (p.  143) :  "  The  vague- 
ness of  the  writer's  words  in  designating  the  third  di- 
vision stands  in  sharp  contrast  to  the  precision  with 
which  he  describes  the  first  two  divisions  by  the  very 
names  that  have  traditionally  been  attached  to  them." 
Wildeboer  (p.  33) :  "  He  cannot  have  meant  an  indefinite 
number.  But  though  he  may  have  been  well  aware 
what  books  were  included  in  it,  he  has  not  told  us,  and 
so  has  left  us  in  uncertainty."  There  is  no  more  "  vague- 
ness "  in  the  expression  employed  to  denote  the  third 
division  than  in  the  other  two  ;  and  no  more  reason  for 
"  uncertainty  "  as  to  the  number  of  books  contained  in 
it,  than  those  contained  in  the  law  or  the  prophets.  Ac- 
cording to  the  testimony  of  Josephus,  nothing  had  been 
added  to  the  sacred  books  or  taken  from  them  since  the 
reign  of  Artaxerxes.  The  uniform  belief  of  the  Jews 
was  that  the  Holy  Spirit  had  departed  from  Israel  after 
Malachi.  The  statement  in  the  Prologue  is  precisely  in 
accord  with  this.     The  language  is  just  what  might  be 


WHEN   AND   BY   WHOM   COLLECTED  113 

expected  if  the  canon  had  been  definitely  settled  for 
three  centuries  ;  and  there  is  nothing  to  suggest  the  sus- 
picion that  the  third  division  was  still  in  the  process  of 
formation.  Of  this  there  is  no  proof  whatever.  The 
long  interval  between  Malachi  and  the  son  of  Sirach 
affords  the  critics  a  cbance  for  endless  theorizing  and 
confident  assertions,  which  are,  after  all,  purely  conject- 
ural and  destitute  of  any  real  foundation. 

Beyond  the  statements  now  considered  we  have  noth- 
ing but  legends  and  uncurtain  traditions  in  relation  to 
the  process  by  which,  the  time  when,  or  the  persons  by 
whom  the  sacred  books  were  put  together  as  we  already 
find  them  in  the  time  of  the  son  of  Sirach.  Whatever 
interest  may  attach  to  this  question,  it  is  plain  that  it 
does  not  in  any  measure  affect  the  authority  of  the 
sacred  writings.  This  is  in  nowise  dependent  upon 
their  being  gathered  together.  A  book  inspired  of  God 
is  just  as  authoritative  in  its  separate  state  as  it  is  when 
united  with  other  books  of  like  character.  And  a  book 
not  inspired  of  God  has  no  more  right  to  control  our 
faith,  when  mingled  with  books  really  inspired,  than  if 
it  stood  alone. 

In  2  Esdras,  an  apocryphal  book  full  of  fables,  and 
dating  probably  from  the  close  of  the  first  century  of 
the  Christian  era,  it  is  said  (xiv.  21  ff.)  that  the  law  (by 
which  is  meant  the  entire  Scriptures)  was  burned  at  the 
time  that  the  temple  was  destroyed,  but  Ezra  was  enabled 
by  divine  inspiration  to  restore  it.  In  the  course  of  forty 
days  he  dictated  ninety-four l  books  ;  seventy  of  which 
were  to  be  delivered  only  to  the  wise,  and  the  others 
were  to  be  published  openly  for  all  to  read.  As  twenty- 
four  is  the  number  of  the  canonical  books,  as  commonly 
reckoned  by  the  Jews,  it  is  evident  that  these  are  the 

1  So  the  Ethiopic  Version,  and  this  is  probahly  the  true  reading ;   the 
Vulgate  has  20-i,  and  some  copies  904. 
8 


114  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

books  to  be  given  to  the  public.  The  same  legend, 
shorn  of  some  of  its  particulars,  is  found  in  quite  a  num- 
ber of  the  early  Christian  fathers,  as  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus,  Tertullian,  Irenaeus *  and  others,  who  relate  that 
the  Scriptures  perished  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
by  Nebuchadnezzar,  but  Ezra  was  divinely  inspired  to 
restore  them  perfectly,  and  did  so  without  the  slightest 
loss  or  alteration.  This  fabulous  story  is,  of  course,  en- 
titled to  no  credence.  It  is  not  unlikely,  however,  that 
it  may  be  so  far  founded  on  fact  as  that  Ezra  took  a 
prominent  part  in  the  collection  and  arrangement  of  the 
sacred  books  after  the  exile,  and  in  multiplying  copies 
for  general  circulation. 

Another  tradition  relating  to  this  subject  is  found  in 
2  Mace.  ii.  13.  Critics  have  been  greatly  divided  in 
opinion  as  to  the  degree  of  credit  to  be  attached  to  this 
passage.  Some  treat  it  as  entirely  trustworthy,  others 
as  undeserving  of  attention.  It  is  in  a  spurious  letter 
purporting  to  be  written  by  Jews  in  Jerusalem  and  in 
Judea  to  those  in  Egypt,  and  is  professedly  based  on 
"writings  and  memorabilia  of  Nehemiah,"  of  which 
nothing  whatever  is  known.  It  says  that  "Nehemiah 
founding  a  library,  gathered  together  the  books  concern- 
ing the  kings  and  prophets,  and  those  of  David,  and  let- 
ters of  kings  concerning  consecrated  gifts."  No  mention 
is  here  made  of  the  law,  which  had  been  spoken  of  in 
ver.  2  as  given  by  Jeremiah  to  those  who  were  carried 
into  exile.  To  this  Nehemiah  added  "  the  [books]  con- 
cerning the  kings  and  the  prophets,"  by  which  are 
obviously  meant  the  historical  and  prophetical  books, 

1  Havernick,  Einleitung,  p.  44,  and  Keil,  Einleitung,  p.  544,  claim 
that  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus  adv.  Haer.,  III.,  21,  is  independent  of  2 
Esdras,  and  simply  attrihutes  to  Ezra  the  collection  of  the  canon; 
but  Oehler,  p.  246,  and  Strack,  p.  415,  have  shown,  from  a  considera- 
tion of  the  entire  passage,  that  this  is  a  mistake. 


WHEN   AM)    BY    WHOM   COLLECTED  116 

here  classed  together  as  forming  the  second  division 
of  the  canon.  Finally  certain  prominent  parts  of  the 
third  and  last  division,  which  may  or  may  not  be  put 
for  the  whole,  viz.,  "  the  [writings]  of  David,"  i.e.,  the 
Psalms  and  "letters  of  kings  concerning  consecrated 
gifts,"  which  can  only  refer  to  the  letters  of  the  Persian 
monarchs  contained  in  the  Book  of  Ezra.1 

In  ver.  1-4  it  is  added,  "In  like  manner  also  Judas  " 
Maccabeus,  who  is  represented  (i.  10)  as  uniting  with 
others  in  sending  this  letter,  "gathered  together  all 
those  things  that  were  lost  by  reason  of  the  war."  It  is 
known  from  other  sources  that  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
made  a  desperate  attempt  to  destroy  the  sacred  books.2 
These  were  carefully  regathered  by  Judas  in  the  same 
manner  as  before.  This  letter  further  contains  the 
legend  of  the  miraculous  preservation  of  the  sacred  fire 
(i.  18  ff.)  and  of  the  tabernacle,  the  ark,  and  the  altar  of 
incense  (ii.  4  ff.).  This  curious  compound  of  truth 
and  fable  attributes  to  Nehemiah  an  agency  in  collect- 
ing the  sacred  writings  which,  in  itself  considered,  is 
altogether  credible. 

These  intimations  from  legendary  sources  acquire 
greater  significance  from  the  fact  that  they  are  corrobo- 
rated by  other  and  independent  considerations.     Thus  : 

1.  Ezra  is  repeatedly  and  with  emphasis  called  "  the 
scribe"  (Neh.  viii.  1,  4,  9,  13,  xii.  26,  36);  "a  ready 
scribe  in  the  law  of  Moses  "  (Ezra  vii.  6) ;  "a  scribe  of  the 
wrords  of  the  commandments  of  Jehovah,  and  of  his  stat- 

1  Wildeboer,  p.  117,  limits  "the  books  concerning  the  kings  and 
prophets"  to  "the  prophetico-historical "  to  the  exclusion  of  the  pro- 
phetical books ;  Movers,  p.  15,  applies  this  expression  to  Chronicles. 
Bertholdt,  I.,  p.  7G,  understands  "the  books  of  David"  to  mean  the 
Books  of  Samuel.  Wildeboer,  p.  39,  overlooks  entirely  the  sacred 
character  of  the  collection,  and  says  that  Nehemiah  "  as  a  lover  of 
books  founded  a  library." 

8  1  Mace.  i.  56,  57;  Josephus,  Ant.,  xii.  5,  4. 


116  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

utes  to  Israel "  (ver.  11) ;  "  a  scribe  of  the  law  of  tlie  God 
of  heavoii "  (vs.  12,  22),  a  character  in  which  he  was 
known,  as  appears  from  the  passages  last  cited,  before 
he  went  up  from  the  captivity.  It  hence  appears  that 
his  professional  occupation  was  with  the  Scriptures,  as 
a  student  and  interpreter,  and  engaged  probably  in  the 
preparation  of  copies  for  the  use  of  the  people  and  in 
certifying  their  correctness.  From  Ezra  dates  the  origin 
of  that  race  of  scribes  so  distinguished  subsequently, 
and  so  frequently  alluded  to  in  the  New  Testament  as 
men  learned  in  the  law,  the  custodians  and  conservators 
of  the  sacred  text. 

2.  The  period  immediately  succeeding  the  exile  was 
devoted  to  the  single  task  of  restoring  everything  after 
the  model  of  former  times.  It  is  well  known  how  ac- 
tively and  earnestly  Ezra  was  engaged  in  the  reinstitu- 
tion  of  the  temple  service  and  in  reviving  the  old  ar- 
rangements of  the  theocracy  in  accordance  with  the 
prescriptions  of  Moses,  David,  and  Solomon,  and  what 
pains  he  took  to  have  the  people  made  acquainted  with 
the  law  of  Moses  and  in  general  with  all  the  ancient 
regulations  and  statutes  of  divine  authority.  The 
thoughts  of  all  dwelt  upon  the  glories  of  Israel  in  the 
past,  and  their  highest  hope  was  to  have  them  repro- 
duced in  their  own  experience.  The  history  of  God's 
dealings  with  their  fathers  and  the  revelations  made  to 
them  were  prominently  before  their  minds,  and  formed 
the  burden  of  their  supplications  (Neh.  ix.).  It  is  just 
what  might  be  expected  from  the  needs  and  longings  of 
the  time,  and  from  the  nature  of  the  work  to  which  Ezra 
so  energetically  addressed  himself,  that  the  sacred  writ- 
ings would  then  be  carefully  gathered  for  the  guidance 
and  instruction  of  the  people,  and  for  their  own  more 
secure  preservation  and  transmission. 

3.  Private  and  partial  collections  of  these  writings  had 


WHEN   AND    15 Y    WHOM   COLLECTED  117 

already  been  formed,  and  were  in  the  possession  of  indi- 
viduals. This  is  apparent  from  the  frequent  references 
made  by  the  prophets,  such  as  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  to 
the  language  of  their  predecessors  or  to  the  former  his- 
tory of  the  nation,  from  the  explicit  mention  of  a  pre- 
diction of  Micah,  delivered  a  century  before,  by  the 
elders  in  addressing  the  people  (Jer.  xxvi.  17-19),  and 
from  "the  books  "  of  which  Daniel  (ix.  2)  speaks  at  the 
close  of  the  captivity,  and  in  which  the  prophecies  of 
Jeremiah  must  have  been  included.  These  would  natu- 
rally suggest  the  formation  of  a  public  and  complete 
collection,  and  would  prepare  the  way  for  it. 

4.  All  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  already 
written  in  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Neheiniah,  so  that  there 
was  nothing  to  prevent  their  collection  of  them.  Tho 
last  addition  to  the  canon  was  made  by  Malachi,  a  con- 
temporary of  Nehemiah.  That  a  large  proportion  of  the 
books  of  the  canon  were  then  in  existence  is  universally 
acknowledged.  The  law  and  the  prophets  and  several 
of  the  K'thubhim,  it  is  generally  admitted,  were  already 
written.  No  one  disputes  this  with  regard  to  the  great 
majority  of  the  Psalms ;  and  there  is  no  good  reason 
why  all  may  not  have  been  written  by  the  end  of  the 
first  century  after  the  exile.  It  has  been  plausibly  ar- 
gued from  1  Chron.  xvi.  35,  36,  where  the  doxology  is 
inserted,  which  marks  the  conclusion  of  the  fourth  Book 
of  the  Psalter  (Ps.  cvi.  48),  that  the  Psalms  must  have 
been  completed  and  arranged  as  at  present  before 
Chronicles  was  written.  Proverbs,  as  is  expressly  stated 
(xxv.  1),  was  completed  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  And 
in  regard  to  those  books,  which  the  critics  assign  to  a 
late  postexilic  date,  it  has  already  been  shown  that  they 
do  so  on  insufficient  grounds. 

5.  The  cessation  of  prophecy  seems  to  be  foreshad- 
owed by  Zechariah  (xiii.  2-5),  who  speaks  of  the  time  as 


118  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

corning  when  the  assumption  of  the  office  of  a  prophet 
shall  be  evidence  of  deception.  And  perhaps  by  Mala- 
chi  (iv.  5),  who  only  looks  forward  to  the  coming  of  Elijah 
before  the  personal  appearance  of  the  Lord.  That  suc- 
ceeding generations  were  fully  aware  that  there  was  no 
prophet  among  them  is  plain  from  1  Mace.  iv.  46,  ix.  27, 
xiv.  41,  which  speak  of  the  perplexity  arising  from  the 
absence  of  a  prophet,  and  the  postponement  of  questions 
for  decision  by  one,  if  any  should  arise.  This  shows 
how  clearly  the  divine  was  discriminated  from  what  was 
purely  human,  and  creates  a  presumption  that  the  in- 
spired writings  were  not  only  sundered  from  all  unin- 
spired productions,  as  they  have  been  from  the  beginning, 
but  were  regarded  as  a  complete  whole  to  which  no  fur- 
ther addition  could  be  made.  Their  collection  could 
scarcely  have  been  delayed  beyond  the  time  when  it  was 
felt  that  the  line  of  prophets  was  coming  to  an  end. 

These  considerations,  taken  in  connection  with  the 
legends  and  traditions  previously  recited,  whose  exist- 
ence is  to  be  accounted  for,  and  can  thus  be  most  satis- 
factorily explained,  make  it  highly  probable  that  the 
canon  was  collected  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  or  in  their 
time. 


VITI 

THE  EXTENT  OF  THE  CANON— THE  CANON  OF  THE 

JEWS 

We  have  now  considered  the  formation  and  collec- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament  canon.  Our  next  inquiry 
concerns  its  compass  or  extent.  What  books  belong  to 
this  canon?  And  how  can  they  be  identified  and  dis- 
tinguished from  all  others  ?  This  topic  will  be  treated 
under  three  heads,  and  in  the  following  order : 

1.  The  canon  of  the  Jews. 

2.  The  canon  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles. 

3.  The  canon  of  the  Christian  Church. 

The  Jews  in  all  parts  of  the  world  accept  the  same 
canon,  which  is  found  without  variation  in  all  copies  of 
the  Hebrew  Bible.  This  unanimity  is  found  to  exist  as 
far  back  as  the  constituents  of  the  Old  Testament  can 
be  traced. 

The  Talmudic  tract  Baba  Bathra,  which  is  attributed 
to  Judas  Hakkadosh  in  the  second  century  A.D.,  contains 
a  catalogue  of  the  sacred  books.  They  are  there  classed 
in  three  divisions  as  in  our  modern  Hebrew  Bibles,  viz., 
five  books  of  the  law,  eight  of  the  prophets,  and  eleven 
of  the  K'thubhim,  making  a  total  of  twenty-four.  In 
this  enumeration  the  whole  of  Samuel  is  counted  one 
book,  so  is  Kings,  and  so  is  Chronicles.  The  twelve 
Minor  Prophets  are  also  reckoned  one,  and  Nehemiah 
is  included  under  Ezra  as  forming  with  it  one  book. 
Under  the  last  two  divisions  the  books  are  arranged  in 

119 


120  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

the  following  order,  which,  differs  somewhat  from  that 
which  is  customary  in  the  Hebrew  Bible : 

The  Prophets :  1,  Joshua ;  2,  Judges ;  3,  Samuel ; 
4,  Kings;  5,  Jeremiah;  6,  Ezekiel;  7,  Isaiah;  8,  The 
Twelve. 

The  K'thubhim  :  1,  Kuth:  2,  Psalms;  3,  Job;  4,  Prov- 
erbs; 5,  Ecclesiastes ;  6,  Song  of  Songs;  7,  Lamen- 
tations; 8,  Daniel;  9,  Esther;  10,  Ezra;  11.  Chroni- 
cles. 

Another  native  testimony,  a  century  earlier,  is  found 
in  a  passage  already  quoted  (p.  37)  from  the  histor- 
ian Josephus,  "Against  Apion,"  i.  8.  His  statement 
respecting  the  sacred  books  is  not  so  explicit  as  that  of 
the  Talmud,  since  he  does  not  mention  them  by  name  ; 
but  he  gives  their  number,  and  describes  them  so  that 
it  can  without  difficulty  be  determined  which  they  were. 
He  gives  both  a  different  total  and  a  different  classifica- 
tion from  that  of  the  Talmud ;  the  difference,  however, 
lies  not  in  the  contents  of  the  canon,  but  in  the  mode 
of  enumeration.  We  have  before  seen  (p.  87)  that 
the  books  of  the  canon  were  reckoned  24  if  Kuth  and 
Lamentations  were  counted  as  separate  books,  but  22 
if  Ruth  was  attached  to  Judges  and  Lamentations  to 
Jeremiah.  The  Talmud  adopts  the  former  reckoning, 
Josephus  the  latter.  These  22  books  he  divides  into 
three  classes :  1,  five  books  of  Moses ;  2,  thirteen 
books  of  the  prophets,  who  wrote  what  was  done  in 
their  times  from  the  death  of  Moses  to  the  reign  of  Ar- 
taxerxes,  the  successor  of  Xerxes,  king  of  Persia;  3, 
four  books  containing  hymns  to  God  and  counsels  for 
men  for  the  conduct  of  life.  The  five  books  of  Moses 
are  easily  recognized.  The  other  books  are  readily 
made  out  by  comparison  of  the  catalogue  already  given 
from  the  Talmud.  The  four  containing  hymns  to  God 
and  counsels  for  men  are  unquestionably  1,  Psalms ;  2, 


THE  CANON   OF  THE   JEWS  121 

Proverbs;  3,  Ecclesiastes ;  4,  The  Song  of  Solomon. 
The  thirteen  books  of  the  prophets  must  then  bo 

1.  Joshua.  8.  Job. 

2.  Judges,  including  Kuth.     9.  Isaiah. 

3.  Samuel.  10.  Jeremiah  and  Lamenta- 

4.  Kings.  tions. 

5.  Chronicles.  11.  Ezekiel. 

6.  Ezra,  with  Nehemiah.      12.  Daniel. 

7.  Esther.  13.  The  Minor  Prophets.1 
It  will  be  observed  that  Josephus  here  departs  from 

the  current  classification,  and  adopts  one  of  his  own, 
suited  to  his  immediate  purpose.  He  is  defending  the 
historical  trustworthiness  of  the  books  of  his  nation,  and 
accordingly  arranges  them  from  a  historical  point  of 
view :  the  books  of  Moses,  containing  the  history  from 
the  creation  to  his  own  death  ;  then  the  other  books  hav- 
ing any  historical  material,  which  he  refers  to  prophets 
in  the  wide  sense  of  men  divinely  inspired ;  and  finally 
those  which  are  not  historical  in  their  character,  but 
contain  hymns  and  wise  counsels. 

The  canon  of  Josephus  might  also,  without  the  aid  of 
the  Talmud,  be  constructed  almost  entirely  out  of  his 
own  writings.  In  the  course  of  his  writings  he  men- 
tions nearly  every  book  in  the  Old  Testament,  either 

1  J.  D.  Michaelis  contended  that  the  four  books  of  the  third  division 
were  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  and  Ecclesiastes,  and  that  the  Song  of 
Solomon  was  not  included  in  the  canon  of  Josephus,  Or.  u.  Ex.  Bib., 
III.,  p.  47.  Oeder  excluded  Esther,  Ezra  with  Nehemiah,  and  Chron- 
icles from  the  list,  and  made  up  the  number  by  Beparating  Ruth  from 
Judges,  and  counting  the  two  books  of  Samuel  and  the  two  <»f  Kings 
separately,  Or.  u.  Ex.  Bib.,  II.,  p.  2t.  Haneberg  did  the  Bame,  Theol. 
Quartalschrift  for  1855,  p.  69.  Movers,  Canon,  pp.  27.  SI,  excludes 
Esther  and  counts  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  separately,  (iractz  rejects 
Ecclesiastes  and  the  Song  of  Solomon  and  counts  in  Ruth  and  Lamen- 
tations, Kohelet,  p.  109.  These  fanciful  suggestions  arc  of  no  ac- 
count, and  it  is  now  generally  admitted  that  the  canon  of  Josephus 
is  identical  with  that  of  the  Hebrew  Bible. 


122  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

explicitly  ranking  tliem  among  the  sacred  books,  or 
quoting  and  making  use  of  them  in  such  a  way  as  shows 
that  they  belong  to  the  number  above  described.1  The 
only  books  which  he  does  not  thus  mention  or  make  use 
of  are  Job,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Solomon's  Song. 
The  reason  why  these  are  not  quoted  by  him  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  rest,  is  not  because  he  did  not  rate 
them  as  of  equal  authority,  but  simply  because  they  did 
not  furnish  any  materials  which  he  had  occasion  to  use 
in  his  histories.  Job  was  outside  of  the  line  of  the 
chosen  people,  and  had  no  connection,  therefore,  with 
the  ancient  history  of  the  Jews.  And  the  other  three 
books  are  not  of  a  historical  character.  But  that  he  ac- 
cepted them  as  canonical  is  evident  from  the  fact  that 
they  are  needed  to  make  up  the  number  22,  which  he 
assigns  to  the  sacred  books. 

This  concurrent  testimony  of  the  Talmud  and  Jose- 
phus  with  regard  to  the  Jewish  canon  might,  if  it  were 
necessary,  be  confirmed  by  statements  of  early  Chris- 
tian fathers,  who  made  special  inquiry  into  this  matter, 
and  have  left  catalogues  of  the  books  esteemed  sacred 
by  the  Jews.  The  native  authorities  already  examined 
are,  however,  sufficient  to  determine  this  point ;  and  the 
statements  of  the  fathers  will  more  naturally  find  their 
place  in  an  account  of  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament 
as  it  has  been  received  and  held  in  the  Christian 
Church. 

The  question  has  here  been  raised  whether  the  canon 
attested  by  Josephus  and  the  Talmud  was  universally 
acknowledged  by  the  Jews.  The  Samaritans,  as  has 
been  before  stated,  accepted  only  the  books  of  Moses.2 

1  Eichhorn  shows  this  in  detail,  pointing  out  the  passages  in  which 
each  book  is  referred  to  or  made  use  of,  and  the  manner  in  which  it  is 
spoken  of.— Rep.  fur  Morg.  Litt.,  V.,  pp.  2G0-270. 

8  The  modern  Samaritans  are  also  in  possession  of  a  chronicle  called 


THE   CANON    OF   THE   JEWS  123 

They  bad  a  temple  of  their  own  on  Mount  Gerizhn,  and 
refused  to  acknowledge  any  book  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  sanctioned  any  other  place  of  worship.  Some  of 
the  early  Christian  fathers  alleged  that  the  Badducees 
admitted  no  other  sacred  books  than  those  of  Moses. 
This  is,  however,  a  mistake  into  which  they  may  have 
been  betrayed  by  confounding  the  Sadducees  with  the 
Samaritans,  with  whom  they  had  no  connection  what- 
ever. The  proofs  adduced  of  so  restricted  a  canon  of 
the  Sadducees  are  devoid  of  force.  Some  passages  in 
Josephus  have  been  appealed  to  ("  Antiq.,"  xiii.  10,  G, 
xviii.  1,  4),  which,  however,  speak  not  of  their  rejection 
of  any  of  the  books  of  Scripture,  but  only  of  the  traditions 
of  the  Pharisees.  Their  denial  of  a  resurrection  (Acts 
xxiii.  8)  does  not  prove  their  rejection  of  those  Script- 
ures in  which  it  is  taught  (e.g.,  Dan.  xii.  2),  any  more 
than  their  disbelief  in  the  existence  of  angels  disproves 
their  acceptance  of  the  Pentateuch.  They  doubtless 
managed  to  put  some  different  interpretation  upon 
passages  whose  obvious  sense  they  were  reluctant  to  ac- 
cept. Nor  does  the  fact  that  our  Lord  proves  the  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection  against  them  by  a  citation  from 
the  Book  of  Exodus  (Mat.  xxii.  23-32),  when  clearer 
proofs  could  have  been  found  in  later  portions  of  tho 
Old  Testament,  sanction  the  view  that  they  acknowl- 
edged only  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch.1    In   this   case   our  Lord   would  more  likely 

the  book  of  Joshua,  which  has  hut  a  slight  connection  with  the  genuine 
book  of  that  name,  and  professes  to  give  the  history  from  the  time  of 
Joshua  to  that  of  the  Roman  emperors. 

1  Lightfoot,  Hebrew  and  Talmudical  Exercitations  on  John  iv.  85, 
adduces  a  passage  from  the  Talmud  in  which  \l.  Gamaliel  argues 
with  a  Sadducee  for  the  resurrection  from  the  law,  the  prophets  and 
the  K'thubhim,  quoting  in  proof  Isaiah  and  the  Song  of  Solomon. 
"  The  books  themselves  out  of  which  these  proofs  were  bronghl  *ere 
not  excepted  against,  but  the  places  quoted  had  another  sense  put  upon 


124  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

have  rebuked  them  for  their  rejection  of  so  large  a 
portion  of  the  word  of  God,  as  on  other  occasions  he 
condemns  the  Pharisees  for  making  it  void  by  their 
traditions.  And  our  Saviour's  urging  the  passage  from 
Exodus  in  preference  to  others  may  have  been  both  to 
show  that  this  doctrine  pervaded  the  Scriptures  even 
from  the  earliest  periods,  and  also  to  bring  the  authority 
of  the  great  legislator  upon  the  case,  who  stood  in  a 
unique  position  among  the  inspired  men  of  the  former 
economy  from  the  peculiar  intimacy  to  which  he  was 
admitted  by  Jehovah,  and  the  lofty  rank  belonging  to 
him  as  the  founder  of  that  dispensation.  Just  as  special 
stress  might  be  laid  upon  the  words  of  Jesus  in  some 
matter  of  faith  or  duty  without  at  all  implying  that  the 
canon  of  the  New  Testament  was  limited  to  the  Gospels, 
or  that  the  writings  of  the  apostles  were  not  of  binding 
authority. 

There  is  also  reason  to  believe  that  the  peculiar  sects 
of  contemplative  ascetics  or  mystics,  the  Essenes  and  the 
Therapeutse,  accepted  the  same  canon  as  the  people  at 
large,  though  they  also  had  other  books  written  by  mem- 
bers of  their  own  sect  which  were  held  in  high  esteem.1 

It  was  confidently  affirmed  by  Semler  and  Corrodi, 
and  has  been  maintained  by  others  since,  that  the 
Alexandrian  Jews  had  a  more  comprehensive  canon  than 
the  Jews  of  Palestine ;  and  appeal  is  made  to  the  Sep- 
tuagint  Version,  which  contained  books  not  in  the  He- 
brew Bible,  and  to  the  esteem  in  which  these  books 
were  held  by  some  of  the  early  Christians.  But  there 
is  satisfactory  evidence  that  these  supernumerary  books 
were  no  more  regarded  as  belonging  to  the  canon  in  the 
one  place  than  they  were  in  the  other. 

them."     A  Sadducee  is  also  mentioned,  who  quotes  the  prophet  Amos. 
See  also  Herzfeld,  III.,  p.  104. 

1  Havernick,  Einleitung,  1  ,  pp.  75,  76. 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  JEWS  126 

1.  There  is  a  strong  antecedent  presumption  against 
a  difference  of  canon  in  the  two  places.  To  alter  the 
canon  would  be  to  change  the  very  basis  of  their  relig- 
ion. Such  an  act  on  the  part  of  the.  Egyptian  Jews 
would  create  a  breach  between  them  and  their  co-re- 
ligionists in  the  Holy  Land.  And  there  are  abundant 
indications  that  they  were  solicitous  to  cement  their 
intercourse  with  them,  and  to  maintain  their  standing 
as  orthodox  Jews.  Jerusalem  was  the  centre  to  which 
the  Jews  resorted  from  every  quarter.  It  set  the  stand- 
ard which  was  everywhere  followed.  Philo  speaks  of 
his  having  been  commissioned  by  his  brethren  in  Egypt 
to  offer  in  their  name  and  on  their  behalf  in  the  Temple 
at  Jerusalem ;  and  this  was  most  probably  in  accordance 
with  a  usual  custom. 

2.  The  translator  of  the  Book  of  Ecclesiasticus  into 
Greek,  in  the  Prologue  before  spoken  of,  makes  mention 
both  of  the  sacred  books  which  his  grandfather  had 
studied  in  Palestine,  and  of  those  which  he  himself 
found  in  Egypt  translated  into  Greek ;  and  he  uses  pre- 
cisely the  same  expressions  in  regard  to  both,  naming 
both  under  the  same  threefold  division  of  "  the  law,  the 
prophets  and  the  rest  of  the  books,"  and  without  in- 
timating that  there  was  any  difference  between  them. 

3.  The  account  of  the  sacred  books  given  by  Josephus 
is  found  in  a  treatise  written  by  him  against  Apion,  a 
grammarian  of  Alexandria.  And  if  the  canon  received 
by  Jews  resident  in  Egypt  was  different  from  that  of 
Palestine,  it  is  unaccountable  that  he  should  have  made 
no  allusion  to  that  circumstance. 

4.  Philo  (nor.  a.d.  41)  was  an  Alexandrian  Jew  of 
great  eminence,  and  the  only  one  whose  writings  have 
been  preserved.  He  makes  repeated  reference  to  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  comments  largely  upon 
particular  portions  of  them.     Unfortunately  he  has  no- 


126  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

where  left  a  list  of  the  books  esteemed  sacred  by  his 
countrymen,  nor  has  he  even  furnished  such  a  general 
description  of  them  as  is  found  in  Josephus.  But  the 
incidental  allusions  and  references  to  individual  books 
and  the  statements  regarding  them  in  different  parts  of 
his  writings  have  been  carefully  collected,  and  from 
them  the  canon  of  Philo  can  be  pretty  well  made  out, 
and  shown  to  be  identical  with  that  of  Josephus  and 
the  Talmud.  According  to  the  detailed  account  given 
by  Eichhorn 1  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
either  expressly  spoken  of  as  inspired,  or  else  quoted 
or  distinctly  mentioned,  except  Esther,  Ezekiel,  Daniel, 
Ecclesiastes  and  the  Song  of  Solomon.2  He  does  not 
happen  to  have  made  any  allusion  to  these  books,  as  he 
had  no  occasion  to  do  so  ;  but  their  canonicity  in  Alex- 
andria as  well  as  elsewhere  is  sufficiently  established  by 
other  testimonies.  At  the  same  time  it  is  to  be  observed 
that  Philo  never  quotes  nor  mentions  any  one  of  the 
apocryphal  books,  though  there  are  indications  that  he 
was  acquainted  with  them.  So  total  a  silence  on  his 
part  is  not  consistent  with  his  classing  them  among  the 
sacred  books.  As  Eichhorn  remarks,  "  He  does  not 
even  show  them  the  respect  which  he  shows  to  Plato, 
Philolaus,  Solon,  Hippocrates,  Heraclitus  and  others, 
from  whose  writings  he  often  adduces  passages." 

1  Iu  the  Rep.  Bib.  u.  Morg.  Litt.,  V.,  pp.  238-250,  based  upon 
Hornemann,  Observationes  ad  illustrationem  doctrinse  de  canone  V. 
T.  ex  Philone,  1775. 

1  Hornemann  includes  Chronicles  among  the  books  omitted  by  Philo, 
but  Buhl  (Canon,  p.  17)  and  Pick  (Journal  of  the  Exegetical  Society, 
1884,  p.  129)  show  that  it  is  cited  by  him.  Only  two  of  the  Minor 
Prophets,  Hosea  and  Zechariah,  are  quoted ;  but  as  The  Twelve  were 
in  all  ancient  catalogues  reckoned  one  book,  the  citation  of  any  part 
shows  the  esteem  in  which  the  whole  was  held.  So  Ruth  was  reckoned 
part  of  Judges,  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah,  and  Nehemiah  of  Ezra; 
and  though  they  are  not  separately  mentioned,  their  canonicity  is 
implied. 


THE  CANON  OF  THE   JEWS  127 

It  is  urged,  however,  that  the  presence  of  several 
books  in  the  Septuagint  Version  which  are  not  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  proves  that  these  books  were  esteemed  a 
part  of  the  canon  in  Egypt,  where  this  version  was  pre- 
pared. This  is  the  most  plausible  argument  that  can 
be  advanced  in  favor  of  a  mure  comprehensive  canon  in 
Alexandria  than  in  Palestine ;  and  yet  it  is  after  all  only 
an  argument  addressed  to  our  ignorance.     For, 

1.  The  origin  and  early  history  of  the  Septuagint 
Version,  and  even  its  original  compass,  are  involved  in 
great  obscurity.  It  is  evident  from  the  various  merit 
and  ability  with  which  different  parts  of  it  are  executed, 
that  it  was  not  all  prepared  at  one  time  nor  by  one 
body  of  translators.  No  one  can  tell  when  the  entire 
translation  was  finished  and  put  together,  nor  when 
and  how  these  other  writings  came  to  be  associated 
with  it.1 

2.  As  is  correctly  stated  by  \Yildeboer,  p.  35,  "  All  the 
manuscripts  of  the  LXX.  which  Ave  possess  are  of 
Christian  origin,  so  that  in  some  even  the  Magnificat  of 
Mary  appears  among  the  hymns.  On  this  account  we 
cannot  always  say  positively  whether  we  have  before  us 
the  views  of  the  Alexandrians.  ...  In  the  various 
manuscripts  the  number  of  apocryphal  books  varies, 
hence  no  established  list  existed."2 

1  Cosin,  p.  54,  quote?  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  "  Read  the  divine  Script- 
ures, namely  the  twenty-two  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  the 
seventy-two  interpreters  translated."  According  to  Cyril,  therefore, 
the  Septuagint  Version  proper  contained  only  the  twenty-two  books 
of  the  Hebrew  canon. 

2 To  the  same  purport,  Ryle,  p.  169  :  "The  manuscripts  of  the  LXX. 
are,  all  of  them,  of  Christian  origin ;  and  moreover  differ  from  one 
another  in  the  arrangement  as  well  as  in  the  selection  of  the  l>ouk<j. 
There  is  no  uniform  Alexandrian  list.  The  Christian  Church  derired 
their  Old  Testament  Scriptures  from  the  Jews;  bat  whether  they  found 
the  books  of  the  Apocrypha  in  Jewish  copies,  or  added  them  after- 
wards, we  have  no  means  of  judging." 


128  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

3.  The  connection  of  these  books  with  the  Septua- 
gint  must,  of  course,  be  explained  in  conformity  with  the 
proofs  already  given  of  the  identity  of  the  canon  in 
Alexandria  and  Jerusalem.  It  seems  most  probable 
that  these  books  were  gradually  attached  to  the  Greek 
Bible  as  a  sort  of  supplement  or  appendix,  which, 
though  not  of  canonical  authority,  stood  in  an  intimate 
relation  to  the  Scriptures,  as  connected  with  the  later 
history  of  the  chosen  people,  or  as  suggestive  of  devout 
meditations,  and  thus  widely  separated  from  all  profane 
or  merely  secular  writings.  As  late  as  the  second  cen- 
tury a.d.  it  was  customary  in  Palestine  to  write  each  of 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  on  a  separate  manu- 
script, instead  of  combining  all  or  a  number  of  them  in 
the  same  volume.  If  a  similar  practice  prevailed  in 
Alexandria,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  these  related  though 
uncanonical  books  might  at  first  have  been  laid  along- 
side of  the  sacred  books  for  safe  keeping ;  and  ultimate- 
ly, when  the  practice  arose  of  including  several  books  in 
the  same  volume,  these  extraneous  books  might  have 
been  copied  along  with  the  rest,  and  joined  to  those  to 
which  they  seemed  to  be  most  nearly  related. 

It  is  further  urged  that  the  apocryphal  books  found 
in  the  Septuagint  were  accepted  by  Christian  fathers  as 
of  divine  authority,  which  could  only  be  because  they 
derived  them  from  the  Jews.  And  as  the  Jews  of  Pal- 
estine did  not  receive  them,  it  must  have  been  from  the 
Jews  of  Alexandria  that  the  fathers  learned  to  hold 
them  in  such  high  esteem.  This  can  only  receive  a  sat- 
isfactory reply  when  the  history  of  the  canon  in  the 
Christian  Church  is  under  consideration.  It  will  then 
appear  that,  however  unadvisedly  some  of  the  fathers 
may  have  expressed  themselves  in  this  matter,  these 
books  were  not  placed  on  a  par  with  the  Hebrew  Script- 
ures in  the  early  church. 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   JEWS  129 

An  argument  has  also  been  drawn  from  an  obviously 
erroneous  reading  in  the  prologues  of  Jerome  to  Tobit 
and  Judith,  in  which  he  is  made  to  say  that  these  books 
were  ranked  by  the  Jews  among  the  Eagiographa  ;  and 
as  these  books  were  not  canonical  in  Palestine,  it  has 
been  inferred  that  he  must  have  had  reference  to  the 
Jews  of  Alexandria.  But  Jerome  elsewhere  explicitly 
asserts  that  these  books  formed  no  part  of  the  canon  of 
the  Jews  ;  the  best  authorities  are,  therefore,  agreed 
that  "  Hagiographa  "  is  an  error  in  transcription,  and 
the  true  reading  is  "Apocrypha." 

Wildeboer  maintains  that  there  was  no  strictly  defined 
canon  in  Alexandria.  He  says,  p.  33  :  "  The  addition 
of  apocryphal  pieces,  and  even  whole  books,  which  are 
in  no  way  distinguished  from  the  other  writings,  shows 
that  the  Alexandrians  knew  no  fixed  canon."  And,  p. 
35  :  "  It  must  not  be  assumed  that  the  existence  of  an 
official  Palestinian  canon  was  known  in  Alexandria. 
.  .  .  The  Law  was  translated  first  and  most  faith- 
fully. .  .  .  The  translation  of  the  Prophets  was  of 
later  origin,  and  is  already  freer  ;  that  of  the  Hagio- 
grapha is  the  freest  of  all.  From  this  it  may  reasonably 
be  inferred  that  the  Alexandrian  translators  themselves 
held  the  Prophets  and  Hagiographa  in  less  exalted  an 
esteem  than  the  Law."  And,  pp.  36,37:  "Philo  en- 
tertained such  a  conception  of  divine  inspiration  as  to 
exclude  the  idea  that  he  accepted  an  officially  defined 
inspired  canon.  .  .  .  Inspiration,  according  to 
him,  is  by  no  means  confined  to  tho  Sacred  Scriptures. 
He  regards  it  as  obtainable  by  any  one  that  practises 
virtue." 

It  has  already  been  shown  how  the  existence  of  ad- 
ditional books  in  the  Septuagint  can  be  explained  con- 
sistently with  the  acknowledgment   of  a  more  limited 
canon  by  the  Jews  of  Alexandria.     What  is  said  of  tho 
9 


130  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

Law  being  more  exactly  translated  than  the  Prophets, 
and  the  Prophets  than  the  Hagiographa,  is  just  as  true 
of  the  Palestinian  Targums  as  of  the  Alexandrian  Sep- 
tuagint ;  and  if  it  disproves  a  fixed  and  definite  canon 
in  Alexandria,  it  does  the  same  in  Palestine.  A  stricter 
regard  for  the  letter  of  the  Law  than  of  the  Prophets  is 
quite  conceivable  without  disparagement  to  the  canon- 
icity  of  the  latter.  And  Philo's  loose  views  of  inspiration 
cannot  be  declared  irreconcilable  with  the  acceptance 
of  a  fixed  canon,  unless  it  is  first  shown  that  he  places 
others  whom  he  thinks  inspired  on  a  level  with  the 
writers  of  Scripture.  This  he  never  does.  And  the 
sharp  discrimination  which  he  makes  is  evidenced  by 
the  fact  that  his  recognition  of  sacred  books  is  limited, 
as  has  been  shown  above,  to  the  strict  Hebrew  canon. 
And  the  supreme  authority  accorded  to  it  by  Philo  and 
his  Jewish  countrymen  is  apparent  from  his  language, 
as  reported  by  Eusebius,1  "  They  have  not  changed  so 
much  as  a  single  word  in  them.  They  would  rather  die 
a  thousand  deaths  than  detract  anything  from  these  laws 
and  statutes." 

Movers,  p.  21  f.,  argues  that  all  the  books  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint  must  have  been  regarded  as  canonical  by  the 
Alexandrian  Jews,  and  as  they  maintained  a  close  con- 
nection with  their  brethren  in  Palestine  in  all  religious 
matters,  and  derived  their  canon  from  them,  these  books 
must  have  been  canonical  likewise  in  Palestine,  and 
were  only  excluded  from  the  canon  in  both  places  at  a 
later  time,  viz.,  the  second  century  A.D.,  when  the  opin- 
ion became  prevalent  that  inspiration  had  ceased  after 
Malachi  (p.  31  f.).  This  extraordinary  opinion  is  suffi- 
ciently refuted  by  the  proofs  already  given,  that  the 
canon,  both  in  Palestine  and  Alexandria,  coincided  pre- 
cisely with  the  books  now  found  in  the  Hebrew  Bible. 
'DePrep.  Evang.,  lib.  viii.,  quoted  by  Cosin,  p.  16. 


THE   CANON   OF  THE   JEWS  131 

Movers  seems  to  have  been  the  first  fco  direct  atten- 
tion to  certain  expressions  in  the  Talmud,  from  which 
he  drew  the  inference  that  the  limits  of  the  canon  were 
not  finally  settled  until  the  second  century  a.  D.  Great 
stress  has  since  been  laid  by  critics  upon  these  passages 
as  showing  that  the  canon,  and  particularly  the  third 
division  of  the  canon,  was  long  in  an  unsettled  and  fluct- 
uating condition. 

Two  technical  expressions  are  found  in  the  passages 
in  question.  One  is  t:\  ganaz,  to  withdraw  from  sacred 
use.  This  was  applied  to  manuscripts  of  the  sacred 
books  which,  on  account  of  errors  of  transcription, 
were  pronounced  unfit  for  synagogue  use;  also  to 
manuscripts  which  were  old  and  worn  out,  and  were, 
in  consequence,  buried  in  a  spot  called  Gheniza,  to 
protect  them  from  profanation  ;  also  to  portions  of  the 
sacred  books  which  were  not  considered  suitable  for 
reading  in  the  public  worship  of  the  synagogue.  To 
ganaz  a  book  is,  accordingly,  to  forbid  its  use  in  the 
synagogue  worship,  which  is  practically  equivalent  to 
excluding  it  from  the  canon. 

The  other  technical  expression  is  to  "  defile  the 
hands."  "  Books  of  Scripture  were  said  to  defile  the 
hands.  To  say  that  a  given  book  defiled  the  hands  is 
to  declare  that  it  belongs  to  the  sacred  canon ;  to  say 
that  it  does  not  defile  the  hands  is  to  deny  it  a  place  in 
the  canon.  This  singular  dictum  of  the  rabbis  has 
been  differently  understood.  The  most  natural  ex- 
planation of  it  would  seem  to  be  that  the  sacred  volume 
is  so  holy  that  no  one  must  touch  it  without  first  wash- 
ing his  hands.  Hands  which  are  clean  enough  for  or- 
dinary purposes  become  unclean  in  the  presence  of  this 
holy  book,  and  thus  the  Scriptures  defile  the  hands, 
causing  them  to  be  considered  unclean,  and  needing  to 
be  cleansed  before  they  can  be  suffered  to  come  into 


132  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

contact  with  what  is  so  pure."  l  The  rabbis  themselves 
give  a  different  account  of  it.  They  explain  it  as  an 
arbitrary  regulation  invented  to  guard  the  sacred  books 
from  injury.  Lest  the  rolls  containing  them  might  be 
damaged  by  being  suffered  to  lie  near  the v  grain  of  the 
first-fruits  and  other  offerings,  and  thus  be  exposed  to 
the  danger  of  being  gnawed  by  the  mice  which  this 
grain  would  attract,  it  was  enacted  that  these  rolls 
would  defile  the  heave-offerings,  and  would  defile  the 
hands  of  him  who  touched  them,  so  that  he  could  not 
handle  those  offerings.2 

Questionings  are  said  to  have  arisen  respecting  Eze- 
kiel  and  Proverbs  which  were  set  at  rest  after  prolonged 
investigation.  It  is  mentioned  that  certain  rabbis  of 
the  school  of  Shammai  denied  that  Ecclesiastes  defiled 
the  hands,  while  those  of  the  rival  school  of  Hillel  af- 
firmed that  it  did.  Others  are  spoken  of  as  doubting 
whether  the  Song  of  Solomon  defiled  the  hands,  and  a 
like  doubt  was  expressed  about  Esther.  But  the  in- 
spiration of  Esther  was  affirmed,  and  at  a  great  assem- 
bly held  at  Jamnia,  near  the  close  of  the  first  century 
A.D.,3  the  seventy-two  elders  resolved  that  the  Song  of 
Solomon  and  Ecclesiastes  do  defile  the  hands.4 


1  Fiirst,  Kanon,  p.  83. 

2  Herzfeld,  Geschichte,  III.,  p.  97 ;  Delitzsch  in  Luth.  Zeitschrift 
for  1854,  p.  280,  quotes  from  the  Talmudic  Tract,  Sabbath,  "  Because 
they  used  to  lay  the  heave-offering  beside  the  book  of  the  Law  and 
thought :  This  is  holy  and  that  is  holy.  But  when  they  saw  that  the 
books  of  the  Law  Avere  thus  exposed  to  the  risk  of  injury,  the  Rabbis 
resolved  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  should  be  regarded  as  unclean." 

3  Robertson  Smith,  p.  185,  dates  it  cir.  90  a.d.  ;  Delitzsch,  ubi 
supra,  p.  282,  a.d.  118. 

4Bloch,  p.  152,  insists  that  "defiling  the  hands"  or  "not  defiling 
the  hands  "  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  canonicity  of  the  books  to 
which  these  expressions  are  applied.  He  says  :  "  It  is  decidedly  an 
error  if  that  propliy lactic  regulation  that  certain  sacred  books  (pre- 
eminently those  of  Moses)  cause  Levitical  defilement  is  put  in  relation 


THE   CANON   OF   THE  JEWS  133 

Robertson  Smith,  pp.  17G  ff.,  alleges  on  this  ground 
that  only  a  certain  portion  of  the  Old  Testament  was 
fixed  and  incontestable  among  the  Jews,  and  that  the 
canonical  authority  of  other  parts  was  disputed  and 
long  stood  in  doubt.  While  there  never  lias  been  any 
dispute  of  the  canonicity  of  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and 
three  large  Poetical  books,  which  stand  first  in  the 
Hagiographa,  viz.,  the  Psalms,  Proverbs,  and  Job,  the 
books  which  follow  are  a  later  addition,  and  some  of  the 
Jews  themselves  questioned  whether  certain  of  them, 
particularly  the  Song  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiastes,  and 
Esther  belonged  to  the  canon;  and  this  strife  was  not 
finally  concluded  in  their  favor  until  nearly  one  hundred 
years  after  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era.1 

In  regard  to  these  disputations  it  is  to  be  observed, 
1.  That  the  question  in  every  case  was  not  whether  a 
book  should  or  should  not  be  admitted  to  the  canon,  as 
though  this  had  never  before  been  decided  ;  but  whether 
a  book,  which  had  long  before  been  received  into  the  can- 
on, was  rightfully  there  or  ought  to  be  excluded  from  it. 

to  the  collection  of  the  canon  or  to  the  canonical  character  of  a  book. 
Besides  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Song  of  Solomon,  there  were  other  ac- 
knowledged canonical  books  to  wbieh  that  ordinance  was  not  extended  ; 
and  the  Shammaitos,  the  alleged  opposers  of  Ecclesiastes,  have,  as 
can  be  shown,  never  doubted  its  canonical  character."  u  It  is  de- 
clared (Kelim,  xiv.  6)  that  those  ordinances,  according  to  which  the 
Pentateuch  and  other  sacred  writings  cause  Leyitical  defilement,  do 
not  apply  to  the  high-priest's  copy  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  was  kept 
in  the  temple.  Here  we  see  clearly  that  the  entire  regulation  stands 
in  no  relation  to  the  canonical  character  of  the  hooks."  lie  refers  to 
his  treatise  on  Ecclesiastes  for  a  statement  of  the  real  reason  of  the 
order  that  certain  books  of  Scripture  produce  Levitical  defilement. 
This  treatise  I  have  not  seen,  of  course,  if  Bloch  can  establish  his 
contention,  this  whole  matter  becomes  irrelevant.  It  is  here  discussed 
on  the  assumption  that  the  phrase  has  the  meaning  which  scholars 
generally  put  upon  it. 

1  Derenbourg,  Histoire  de  la  Palestine,  pp.  295  ff.,  makes  the  num- 
ber of  antilegomena  still  greater. 


134  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

2.  The  grounds  of  objection  did  not  affect  the  au- 
thorship or  genuineness  of  the  books,  but  rest  upon  ex- 
ceptions taken  to  the  contents  of  the  books  themselves, 
implying  a  high  and  well-established  standard  of  ca- 
nonical fitness,  to  which  every  book  included  in  the 
canon  must  be  expected  to  conform.  The  Song  of 
Solomon,  considered  as  a  mere  song  of  worldly  love,  and 
Ecclesiastes  in  its  commendation  of  worldly  enjoyment, 
were  thought  to  fall  below  this  standard.  Some  of  the 
objections  are  frivolous  and  trivial,  and  seem  to  have 
been  made  for  the  sake  of  refuting  them  by  a  display  of 
subtlety.  And  none  of  them  were  of  such  a  character 
as  to  lead  to  the  omission  of  any  of  these  books  from 
the  canon.  When  submitted  to  the  assembly  of  elders 
the  objections  were  overruled,  and  the  books  retained. 
And  the  Talmud  in  other  passages  abundantly  testifies 
to  the  canonical  authority  of  the  disputed  books.  In- 
stead of  proving  that  the  canon  was  still  unsettled, 
these  objections  were  directed  against  a  canon  already 
firmly  established,  and  left  it  in  the  same  condition  in 
which  they  found  it.  The  questionings  of  individual 
rabbis  are  of  no  account  against  the  universal  sentiment 
of  the  Jewish  Church.1 

1  Strack,  p.  429,  speaks  very  decidedly  on  this  point :  u  Seriously 
meant  contradictions  against  the  canon  of  the  twenty-four  sacred  books 
were  never  raised  in  ancient  Jewry ;  books  once  received  were  neither 
seriously  contested,  nor  was  any  book,  that  is  spoken  of  in  the  pre- 
ceding discussion  as  not  received,  ever  subsequently  admitted,  or  at- 
tempts made  to  admit  it.  In  all  the  Talmudic  disputations  the  question 
was  not  of  the  reception  of  new  books,  nor  of  the  enlargement  of  the 
canon,  nor  of  the  exclusion  of  a  book  on  the  ground  of  any  critical 
doubts,  but  only  that  individual  scholars  adduced  reasons  taken  from 
the  contents  for  the  exclusion  of  one  book  or  another  long  since  re- 
ceived, without  in  a  single  instance  practical  effect  being  given  to  these 
discussions.  The  debates  often  make  the  impression  that  the  doubts 
were  only  raised  in  order  to  be  contradicted ;  in  other  words,  on  the 
one  hand  as  an  exercise  of  acuteness,  and  on  the  other  to  demonstrate 


THE   CANON   OF  THE  JEWS  136 

3.  These  objections  were  not  limited  to  what  Robert- 
son Smith  regards  as  the  disputed  portion  of  the  canon  ; 
but,  such  as  they  were,  they  were  directed  against  what 
he  considers  the  unquestioned  portion  us  well,  e.g.t 
against  Proverbs  and  the  Book  of  Ezekiel. 

4.  The  idea  of  an  unsettled  canon  in  the  first  century 
of  the  Christian  era  is  absolutely  inadmissible  in  the 

the  authority  of  the  sacred  books  as  absolutely  assured.  There  is  no 
passage  from  which  it  follows  that  there  ever  was  any  wavering  in  the 
religious  consciousness  of  the  people  as  to  the  eanonicity  of  any  one  of 
the  twenty-four  books." 

Herzfeld,  Geschichte,  III.,  p.  97,  says  to  the  same  purport:  "The 
question  was  not  of  newly  receiving  books,  but  of  p-rmnnding  those 
that  had  long  been  received  for  important  reasons.  .  .  .  But  I 
doubt  Avhetber  a  book  already  admitted  to  the  canon  was  ever  actually 
removed  in  consequence.  When  it  is  said,  in  Abotb  IJ.  Nathan,  ch.  i., 
that  Proverbs,  the  Song  of  Solomon,  and  Ecclesiastes  were  actually 
made  apocryphal,  until  the  Great  Synagogue  explained  what  vras 
strange  in  them  and  put  an  end  to  their  exclusion,  it  may  be  affirmed 
that  so  recent  an  account  deserves  no  faith,  as  opposed  to  those  older 
ones  which  differ  from  it." 

So,  too,  Buhl,  Kanon  und  Text,  p.  25  :  "  Such  attacks  upon  books  of 
the  Bible  do  not  exclude  an  earlier  fixed  canon,  since  the  criticism  of 
particular  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  were  not  altogether  silenced 
after  the  Synod  of  Jamuia,  nor  even  after  the  decision  of  the  Mishnah. 
Further,  the  very  attacks  referred  to,  more  carefully  considered,  actu- 
ally presuppose  a  canon  of  Scripture.  The  question  was  not  of  the 
genuineness  or  age  of  the  writings  impugned,  but  only  of  doubts  and 
scruples  which  were  called  forth  by  a  definitely  developed,  dogmatic 
conception  of  Scripture;  since  from  the  notion  of  a  strictly  limited 
Scripture,  sundered  from  all  other  literature,  they  felt  entitled  to  insti- 
tute certain  demands  of  the  harmonious  unity  and  moral  and  religious 
purity  of  this  Scripture.  Josephus  boasts  in  the  passage  above  ad- 
duced that  the  sacred  literature  of  the  Jews  did  not  consist,  like  that  of 
other  nations,  of  discordant  and  conflicting  books.  The  ven  offence 
which  was  taken  at  that  time  at  the  writings  in  question,  and  which 
compelled  the  defenders  of  them  to  resort  to  all  sorts  of  strange,  forced 
interpretations,  that  were  ultimately  approved  by  all  Jews,  is  the  most 
convincing  proof  that  they  felt  very  Btrongly  bound  to  take  these  ac- 
cused books  under  their  protection,  which  can  only  be  properly  ex- 
plained on  the  aforesaid  presupposition." 


136  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

face  of  the  explicit  testimony  of  Josephus.  However 
the  critics  may  try  to  persuade  themselves  that  he  was 
mistaken  in  fixing  the  time  of  the  completion  of  the 
canon  as  far  back  as  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longinia- 
nus,  he  certainly  knew  in  what  esteem  the  sacred  books 
were  held  in  his  own  day,  and  the  convictions  of  his 
countrymen  in  regard  to  them.  And  he  could  not  pos- 
sibly have  said  that  nothing  had  been  added  to  them  or 
taken  from  them,  or  altered  in  them,  in  all  the  time  that 
had  elapsed  since  Artaxerxes,  if  the  true  limits  of  the 
canon  were  still  in  doubt,  or  certain  books  had  found  a 
place  in  it  within  a  decennium. 

Wildeboer  claims  that  the  number  of  books  in  the 
K'thubhim  were  not  fixed,  nor  the  Old  Testament  canon 
closed,  till  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  when,  he 
says  (p.  146),  "  we  may  reckon  that  all  scribes  were 
agreed  upon  the  subject."  And  yet  he  adds  (p.  150) : 
"  The  notices  in  the  Gemara  prove  that  the  objections 
were  not  forgotten.  That  they  were  still  felt  is  shown 
by  Megilla  (fol.  7a),  where  the  objection  against  Esther 
is  brought  up  by  R.  Samuel,  who  lived  in  the  third  cen- 
tury a.d."  If  individual  doubts  prove  an  unsettled 
canon,  consistency  would  have  required  him  to  say  that 
it  was  not  yet  closed  in  the  third  century.  But  he  sub- 
stantially yields  the  whole  case  by  the  admission  (p. 
147)  :  "  Josephus  proves  most  clearly  that  the  number 
was  virtually  fixed  about  100  a.d.  Public  opinion  was 
really  already  settled.  But  it  awaited  its  sanction  from 
the  schools."  And  (p.  4G),  "  A  general  settled  persua- 
sion in  regard  to  canonicity  preceded  the  decision  of 
the  schools.  In  the  days  of  Josephus  the  schools  still 
had  their  doubts  about  certain  books  of  the  third  divis- 
ion. But  among  the  people  there  existed  in  his  days 
such  a  reverence  for  precisely  the  books  which  still  con- 
stitute our  canon  (as  the  number  given  by  Josephus 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   JEWS  137 

proves)  that,  '  if  need  be,  they  would  gladly  die  for 
them.'  "  Such  a  universal  conviction  on  the  part  of  the 
mass  of  the  people  is  not  set  aside  by  the  questionings 
of  a  few  individual  doctors.  "  The  decision  of  the 
schools "  has  not  the  power  to  make  or  unmake  the 
canon,  whether  in  the  days  of  Josephus  or  in  our  own. 
And  if  the  statement  of  Josephus  proves  anything,  it 
proves  that  the  canon  was  not  only  settled  at  the  mo- 
ment of  his  writing,  but  that  it  had  been  settled  for  a 
very  long  period  before  that. 

It  has  further  been  represented  that  the  books  of 
Baruch  and  Ecclesiasticus  are  accorded  canonical  au- 
thority in  certain  passages  of  the  Talmud.  But  this  is 
an  utter  mistake.  Strack,  who  is  an  authority  in  post- 
biblical  Jewish  literature,  declares  that  not  a  single 
proof  can  be  adduced  from  the  entire  range  of  Jewish 
writings,  whether  of  Palestine  or  Babylonia,  that  Baruch 
was  held  in  such  high  esteem.  He  also  affirms  that  the 
like  statement  regarding  Ecclesiasticus  is  unfounded. 
In  a  few  instances  this  book  seems  to  be  cited  with  the 
same  formulas  that  are  used  in  quoting  Holy  Scripture, 
e.g.,  with  the  phrase,  "  it  is  written."  But  in  some  of 
these  passages  it  can  be  shown  that  the  correct  text 
reads,  "it  is  written  in  the  Book  of  Sirach"  or  Eccle- 
siasticus, which  of  course  conveys  no  implication  of 
canonicity,  and  the  context  is  directly  opposed  to  such 
an  implication.  In  a  very  few  other  passages  it  would 
seem  as  though  the  citation  were  made  from  memory, 
and  the  similarity  of  its  style  to  the  canonical  writings 
of  Solomon  had  betrayed  the  writer  into  the  mistake 
of  supposing  that  the  verse  cited  was  from  the  Bible. 
But  that  this  must  have  arisen  from  inadvertence  is 
plain,  since  in  no  place  in  the  Talmud  or  in  any  Jew- 
ish writer,  ancient  or  modern,  is  Ecclesiasticus  reck- 
oned among  the  books  of  Scripture ;  on  the  contrary, 


138  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

it  is  over  and  over  again  expressly  excluded  from  the 
canon. 

This  book  of  the  son  of  Sirach,  with  its  moral  and 
religious  tone,  its  apparent  claim  of  inspiration  (xxiv. 
32-34,  xxxiii.  16-18),  and  written  in  Hebrew,  was  ex- 
cluded from  the  canon,  as  the  critics  aver,  solely  on 
account  of  its  recent  origin.  And  yet  the  Book  of 
Daniel,  which  they  confidently  assert  was  written  at  a 
still  later  date,  was  nevertheless  admitted  to  the  canon 
with  such  unquestioning  unanimity,  that  not  a  whisper 
of  objection  of  any  sort  is  made  to  it  in  any  Jewish 
writing,  though  doubts  were  expressed  respecting  other 
books  of  acknowledged  antiquity.  This  has  occasioned 
them  much  perplexity.  They  say  it  is  because  it  was 
attributed  to  Daniel,  though  really  written  in  the  time 
of  the  Maccabees.  But  how  such  an  origin  could  have 
been  unhesitatingly  ascribed  by  the  contemporary  gen- 
eration to  a  book  produced  in  their  own  time,  and  such 
implicit  faith  reposed  in  its  unaccredited  contents,  is  a 
puzzle. 

The  following  passages  from  the  Talmud  are  adduced 
as  indicating  doubts  respecting  the  canonicity  of  certain 
books  of  the  Old  Testament : 

u  Remember  that  man  for  good,  Hananiah,  son  of  Hezekiah,  by 
name  [a  younger  contemporary  of  Hillel  at  the  time  of  the  birth  of 
Christ],  since  but  for  him  the  Book  of  Ezekiel  would  have  been  with- 
drawn (ganaz),  because  its  words  contradict  the  words  of  the  law. 
What  did  he  do?  They  brought  up  to  him  300  measures  of  oil,  and 
he  sat  in  an  upper  room  and  explained  them."  Sabbath  13b,  Hagiga 
13a,  Menahoth  45a  (Fiirst,  Kanon,  p.  24). 

u  The  wise  men  desired  to  withdraw  (ganaz)  the  Book  of  Ecclesias- 
tes  because  its  language  was  often  self-contradictory  and  contradicted 
the  utterances  of  David.  Why  did  they  not  withdraw  it?  Because 
the  beginning  and  the  end  of  it  consist  of  words  of  the  law."  Sabbath 
30b  (after  Ryle,  pp.  195,  197). 

"  Some  desired  also  to  withdraw  (ganaz)  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  be- 
cause it  contained  internal  contradictions  (e.<?.,  xxvi.  4,  5),  but  the  at- 


THE   CANON    OF   THE   JEWS  130 

tempt  was  abandoned  because  the  wise  men  declared,  4  We  have  ex- 
amined more  deeply  into  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes,  and  have  disco y< k  d 
the  solution  of  the  difficulty ;  here  also  we  wish  to  inquire  more 
deeply."     Sabbath  30b  (Kyle,  p.  194  f.). 

"At  first  they  said  that  Proverbs,  Canticles,  and  Ecclesiastes  are 
apocryphal  (genuzim).  They  said  they  were  parabolic  writings  and 
not  of  the  Hagiographa  .  .  .  till  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue 
came  and  explained  them."  Aboth  of  K.Nathan,  c.  i.  (Robertson 
Smith,  p.  181.) 

"  All  the  Holy  Scriptures  defile  the  hands;  the  Song  of  Solomon  and 
Ecclesiastes  defile  the  hands.  K.  Judah  says,  The  Son<j  of  Solomon 
defiles  the  hands,  and  Ecclesiastes  is  disputed.  K.  Jose  says,  Ecclesi- 
astes does  not  defile  the  hands,  and  the  Song  of  Solomon  La  disputed. 
K.  Simon  says,  Ecclesiastes  belongs  to  the  light  things  of  tin-  School 
of  Shammai,  and  the  heavy  things  of  the  school  of  Billel  [i.e.,  the  usu- 
ally rigorous  school  of  Shammai  here  departs  from  the  accepted  view 
that  Ecclesiastes  defiles  the  hands,  while  that  of  Ilillel  adheres  to  itj. 
K.  Simeon,  son  of  Azzai  says,  I  received  it  as  a  tradition  from  the  sev- 
enty-two elders  on  the  day  when  they  enthroned  EL  Eliezer,  son  of 
Azariah  [as  President  of  the  Beth  Din  at  Jamnia,  which  became  the 
seat  of  the  heads  of  the  Scribes  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem],  that  the 
Song  of  Solomon  and  Ecclesiastes  defile  the  hands,  li.  Akiha  said, 
Silence  and  Peace !  No  one  in  Israel  has  ever  doubted  that  the  Song 
of  Solomon  defiles  the  hands.  Eor  no  day  in  the  history  of  the  world 
is  worth  the  day  when  the  Song  of  Solomon  was  given  to  Israel.  For 
all  the  Hagiographa  are  holy,  but  the  Song  of  Solomon  is  a  holy  of 
holies.  If  there  has  been  any  dispute,  it  referred  only  to  Ecclesiastes. 
.  .  .  So  they  disputed,  and  so  they  decided."  Yadaim,  iii.  5  (Kob- 
ertson  Smith,  p.  186). 

u  Ecclesiastes  does  not  defile  the  hands  according  to  the  school  of 
Shammai,  but  does  so  according  to  the  school  of  Ilillel."  Eduyoth, 
v.  3  (ibid.,  p.  186). 

"  According  to  R.  Judah,  Samuel  said  :  Esther  does  not  defile  the 
hands.  Are  we  then  to  say  that,  in  the  opinion  of  Samuel,  Esther  was 
not  spoken  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  was  spoken  to 
be  read,  and  was  not  spoken  to  be  written.  .  .  .  K.  Simeon  says  : 
Kuth,  Song  of  Solomon  and  Esther  defile  the  hands.  In  opposition  to 
Simeon,  Samuel  agrees  with  Joshua  that  Esther  was  only  intended  to 
be  read,  not  to  be  written.  According  to  a  Baraitha,  It.  Simeon  ben 
Manasya  said  :  Ecclesiastes  does  not  defile  the  hands,  because  it  con- 
tains Solomon's  own  wisdom.  He  was  answered  :  Is  Ecclesiastefl  the 
only  thing  that  Solomon  spake?  Does  not  the  Scripture  say  that  he 
spake  three  thousand  proverbs  (1  Kin.  iv.  32)?    Yet  this  Solomon  says 


140  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

(Prov.  yrr  G)  :  Add  not  to  his  -words.  What  is  the  force  of  this  proof  ? 
You  might  think  :  He  spake  much ;  if  he  wished,  it  was  written  down ; 
if  he  wished,  it  was  not  written  down.  But  this  idea  is  contradicted  by 
Add  not  to  his  words."  [The  meaning  is,  Solomon  made  no  addition  to 
the  words  of  God.  Ecclesiastes,  therefore,  is  not  Solomon's  own  wis- 
dom, which  might  or  might  not  be  written,  as  he  pleased,  but  a  divine 
book.]     Megilla,  i.  7a.     (Delitzsch,  ibid.,  p.  283.) 

Delitzsch  understands  this  obscure  passage  to  mean  that,  while 
Esther  was  inspired,  it  was  intended  only  to  be  orally  preserved,  and 
not  committed  to  writing,  and  consequently  did  not  defile  the  hands. 
According  to  Fiirst,  p.  57,  though  it  was  admitted  to  have  been  written 
under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  contention  was  that  it  should 
only  be  regarded  as  history,  and  not  as  belonging  to  the  K'thubhim, 
until  finally  the  wise  approved  of  its  reception. 

The  Jerusalem  Talmud  says,  Megilloth,  fol.  70,  74,  that  85  elders, 
among  whom  were  more  than  30  prophets,  ridiculed  the  introduction  of 
the  feast  of  Purim  by  Esther  and  Mordecai  as  an  innovation  upon  the 
law.     Bleek,  Einleitung,  p.  404. 

Some  expressions  of  Jerome  are  also  appealed  to  as  reflecting  Jew- 
ish disputes  respecting  canonical  books. 

k'The  beginning  and  end  of  Ezekiel  are  involved  in  obscurities,  and 
among  the  Hebrews  these  parts,  and  the  exordium  of  Genesis,  must 
not  be  read  by  a  man  under  thirty. "  Epistle  to  Paulinus  (from  Rob- 
ertson Smith,  p.  176). 

"  The  Hebrews  say,  when  it  seemed  as  though  this  book  should  be 
obliterated  along  with  other  writings  of  Solomon  which  are  antiquated 
and  have  not  been  kept  in  memory,  because  it  asserts  that  the  creat- 
ures of  God  are  vanity,  and  that  all  amounts  to  nothing,  and  prefers 
eating  and  drinking  and  transient  pleasures  to  all  besides  ;  on  account 
of  this  one  paragraph  it  was  deservedly  authorized  to  be  put  in  the 
number  of  divine  books,  because  it  concluded  the  whole  disputation 
and  the  entire  account  in  this  summing  up,  as  it  were,  and  said  the  end 
of  the  discourses  was  one  most  suitable  to  be  heard  and  had  nothing 
difficult  in  it,  to  wit,  that  we  should  fear  God  and  keep  his  command- 
ments."    Comment  on  Ecclesiastes,  xii.  13,  14  (from  Ryle,  p.  197). 


IX 

THE  CANON  OF  CHRIST  AND   HIS  APOSTLES 

The  history  of  the  formation  and  the  collection  of  the 
canon  among  the  Jews  has  now  been  traced,  and  the  ex- 
tent of  the  canon  received  by  them  has  been  considered. 
The  next  point  to  be  considered  is,  What  books  were 
recognized  as  belonging  to  the  Old  Testament  by  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  inspired  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  ?  They  have  not  left  us  a  list  of  these  books, 
but  they  have  clearly  indicated  their  mind  in  this  matter, 
so  that  we  need  be  under  no  mistake  as  to  their  mean- 
ing. They  give  their  infallible  and  authoritative  sanction 
to  the  canon  as  it  existed  among  the  Jews.  This  is  done 
both  negatively  and  positively.  They  sanction  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Jews  negatively,  in  that 
they  never  charge  them  with  mutilating  or  corrupting 
the  word  of  God.  Our  Lord  repeatedly  rebukes  them 
for  making  void  the  word  of  God  by  their  traditions.  At 
various  times  he  corrects  their  false  glosses  and  errone- 
ous interpretations  of  Scripture.  But  while  censurin- 
them  for  this,  he  could  not  have  passed  it  over  in  silence, 
if  they  had  been  guilty  of  excluding  whole  books  from 
the  canon  which  properly  belonged  there,  or  inserting 
that  which  was  not  really  inspired  of  God. 

The  positive  sanction  which  they  give  to  the  Jewish 
canon  is  afforded : 

1.  By  express  statements,  as  in  Rom.  iii.  2,  "  Unto 
them  [the  Jews]  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God,"  or 

141 


142  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION" 

as  rendered  in  the  E.  V.,  "  They  were  intrusted  with  the 
oracles  of  God."  2  Tim.  iii.  16,  "  All  Scripture  [the  body 
of  writings  so  called  by  the  Jews]  is  given  by  inspira- 
tion of  God,"  or  more  emphatically  still  in  the  E.  V., 
"  Every  Scripture  inspired  of  God,"  i.e.,  every  part  of 
that  collection  of  writings  known  as  Scripture  is  here 
not  merely  affirmed  but  assumed  to  be  inspired  of  God, 
and  this  assumption  is  made  the  basis  of  the  declara- 
tion as  to  its  profitable  character.  The  spiritual  profit 
derived  from  it  is  not  here  made  the  test  of  inspiration, 
but  its  acknowledged  inspiration  is  the  credential  which 
gives  assurance  that  the  man  of  God  will  be  by  it  fur- 
nished completely  unto  every  good  work. 

2.  By  general  references  to  the  sacred  books  by  their 
familiar  designations,  either  those  which  describe  them 
as  a  whole,  as  the  Scriptures,  Mat.  xxii.  29,  "Ye  do  err, 
not  knowing  the  Scriptures,"  John  v.  39,  "  Search  the 
Scriptures,"  x.  35,  "  The  Scripture  cannot  be  broken," 
Luke  xxiv.  45,  Acts  xvii.  11,  Eom.  iv.  3,  x.  11 ;  Holy 
Scriptures,  Eom.  i.  2,  2  Tim.  iii.  15 ;  or  which  speak  of 
them  under  their  commonly  recognized  divisions,  as  the 
law  and  the  prophets,  Mat.  v.  17,  vii.  12,  xi.  13„  xxii.  40, 
Luke  xvi.  16,  29,  31,  John  i.  45,  Acts  xxiv.  14,  xxviii. 
23,  Eom.  iii.  21,  these  prominent  portions  being  put  for 
the  whole,  or  "  prophets  "  being  used  in  a  wide  sense  so 
as  to  embrace  all  the  inspired  writers  after  Moses,  cf. 
Heb.  i.  1 ;  or  with  allusion  to  the  threefold  division  of 
the  canon,  Luke  xxiv.  44,  "  the  law  of  Moses,  and  the 
prophets,  and  the  Psalms."  In  this  last  passage  "  the 
Psalms  "  has  sometimes  been  understood  as  denoting 
the  entire  Hagiographa,  of  which  it  is  the  first  and  lead- 
ing book.  But  it  is  doubtless  used,  in  its  strict  and 
proper  sense,  to  designate  the  book  so  called,  which 
is  here  singled  out  from  the  rest  of  the  third  division 
of  the  canon  as  that  which  specially  testifies  of  Christ. 


THE   CANON   OF   CHRIST  AND   HIS    AP08TLE8      L43 

All  the  books  without  exception  are,  however,  Bpok<  n 
of  iu  the  same  connection,  verse  27,  kk  And  beginning 
from  Moses  and  from  all  fche  prophets,  he  interpreted 
to  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning 
himself." 

3.  By  the  abundant  citation  of  passages  from  the  Old 
Testament  as  the  word  of  Clod,  as  the  language  <>f  tho 
Holy  Ghost,  or  as  the  utterance  <>1"  inspired  men. 
Nearly  every  book  in  the  Old  Testament  is  thus  quot<  d. 
"With  the  exception  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther,  Eccle- 
siastes,  and  the  Song  of  Solomon,  they  are  all  quoted 
in  the  New  Testament.1 

Every  such  quotation  sanctions,  of  course,  the  canon- 
icity  of  the  book  that  is  thus  cited.  If  a  few  books  are 
not  quoted,  this  does  not  justify  the  suspicion  that  they 
were  excluded  from  the  canon ;  it  is  simply  because  the 
inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testament  had  no  occasion 
to  make  citations  from  them.  Their  citations  are  made 
as  appropriate  passages  offer  themselves  for  the  illus- 
tration or  enforcement  of  their  particular  theme,  with 
no  preconceived  purpose  of  making  use  in  this  manner 
of  every  book  which  they  esteemed  canonical.  And  it 
may  be  fairly  claimed  that  their  citations  are  of  such 
a  nature  as  to  extend  their  sanction  not  only  over  the 
books  which  are  explicitly  quoted,  but  over  the  entire 
collection  in  which  they  are  found.  They  take  the  col- 
lection of  sacred  books  commonly  received  among  the 
Jews,  and  quote  from  it  freely,  as  they  find  occasion. 

1  Three  of  the  briefest  of  the  Minor  Prophets,  Obadiah,  Nahum, 
and  Zephaniah  are  not  separately  quoted;  these  are  not  to  be  reckoned 
exceptions,  however,  as  the  Twelve  were  anciently  regarded  as  one 
book;  and  the  canonicity  of  the  others  being  established,  that  of  those 
follows  of  course.  It  has  been  claimed  that  Eceles  vii.  20  is  cited  in 
Rom.  iii.  10;  Eccles.  v.  14  in  1  Tim.  vi.  7;  Esth.  ix.  22  in  Rev.  xi.  LO, 
and  Solomon's  Song  v.  2  in  Rev.  iii.  20.  If  these  allusions  art.'  allowed, 
the  number  of  books  not  cited  will  be  correspondingly  reduced. 


144  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

And  every  passage  which  they  adduce  is  put  forth  as 
possessing  divine  authority.  They  could  in  no  way 
more  significantly  show  that  they  regarded  the  entire 
collection,  with  all  that  it  contained,  as  the  inspired 
word  of  God. 

To  those  who  reverently  accept  the  authority  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  the  sanction  thus  given  to  the 
canon  of  the  Jews  is  the  highest  possible  proof  of  its 
correctness.1  It  contains  just  those  books  which  were 
designed  of  God  to  form  the  rule  of  faith  and  life  for 
the  Jewish  Church,  and  to  be  transmitted  by  them  to 
the  Church  of  all  time.  In  reply  to  this,  however,  it 
has  been  said  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 


1  Moses  Stuart,  the  father  of  Hebrew  learning  in  this  country,  says, 
Old  Testament  Canon,  p.  316  :  "  While  I  am  not  fond  of  applying 
harsh  and  ungrateful  epithets  to  any  man  or  body  of  men  whatever,  I 
know  not  how  to  call  the  denying  or  the  designed  evading  of  the 
authority  or  the  decision  of  Christ  and  of  his  apostles  respecting  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  any  tiling  less  than  unbelief."  Wildeboer 
allows  himself  to  use  the  following  most  extraordinary  language,  p. 
153  :  "It  was  impossible  that  Jesus  should  acknowledge  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Canon  as  such,  although  in  His  days  about  the  same  books  were, 
no  doubt,  accounted  to  belong  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  are  found  in 
our  own  Old  Testament.  But  what  a  misconception  of  Jesus'  person 
and  teaching  comes  out  in  the  idea  that  the  Saviour  felt  himself  bound 
to  a  Canon !  .  .  .  Did  he  need  for  this  the  sanction  of  synagogue 
and  scribes?  .  .  .  The  notion  that  the  Prophet,  the  Revelation  of 
God  by  pre-eminence,  deemed  Himself  bound  by  a  Canon  can  only 
arise  in  a  heart  so  ignorant  of  the  whole  nature  of  scientific  criticism, 
and,  therefore,  so  afraid  of  it,  that  it  will  rather  admit  a  gross  incon- 
sistency in  its  conception  of  the  Saviour  than  let  go  its  cherished  tradi- 
tion." Christ's  recognition  of  the  Jewish  canon  as  the  unadulterated 
word  of  God,  and  his  frequently  repeated  appeal  to  it  as  such,  is  not 
subjecting  himself  to  the  authority  of  the  synagogue  and  the  scribes. 
It  is,  on  the  contrary,  his  affirmation  on  his  own  independent  authority 
that,  in  this  particular,  they  have  made  no  mistake.  The  imputation 
of  such  a  view  to  those  who  cannot  accept  the  groundless  conclusions 
of  the  critics  respecting  the  formation  of  the  canon,  is  a  gross  and 
gratuitous  misrepresentation. 


TIIE   CANON   OF   CIIRIST  AND   HIS    APOSTLES      145 

made  use  of  the  Septuagiut  version  in  quoting  from  the 
Old  Testament,  and  hence  must  be  regarded  as  sanc- 
tioning the  canonicity  of  all  the  books  which  that  ver- 
sion contained. 

1.  In  making  use  of  the  Septuagiut,  as  the  New  Tes- 
tament writers  frequently  do,  they  by  no  means  sanction 
its  inaccuracies  of  text  or  of  translation,  nor  the  spurious 
additions  made  to  the  canon,  even  if  it  be  admitted  that 
the  apocryphal  books  were  then  already  incorporated 
with  this  version,  of  which  there  is  no  certain  proof.1 
They  employ  its  familiar  words,  so  far  as  they  are 
adapted  to  the  purpose  which  they  have  in  view,  with- 
out pedantically  correcting  unessential  departures  from 
the  Hebrew  original  which  do  not  affect  their  argument 
or  their  line  of  remark.  In  all  this  they  are  responsible 
only  for  the  inherent  truthfulness  of  each  passage  in  tho 
form  which  they  actually  adopt. 

2.  The  apostles  were  not  liable  to  be  misunderstood 
in  this  matter.  Unless  they  made  explicit  declarations 
to  the  contrary,  they  would  as  a  matter  of  course  be  re- 
garded as  accepting  the  canon  currently  received  among 
the  Jews.  And,  as  has  already  been  shown,  the  JewTs 
admitted  just  those  books  to  be  canonical  which  are 
now  found  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and  no  others. 

3.  While  the  New  Testament  writers  quote  freely  and 
abundantly  from  the  canonical  books,  they  never  quote 
from  any  of  the  Apocrypha,  much  less  do  they  ascribe 
to  them  inspiration  or  canonicity.  Attempts  have  in- 
deed been  made  to  point  out  quotations  from  the  Apoc- 
rypha, but  without  success,  as  is  evident  from  the 
detailed  examination   of   the  passages  in    question  by 

1  "  It  must  he  remembered  that  scarcely  anyone  in  those  days  pos- 
sessed a  complete  collection  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  ;  most  of  the  syna- 
gogues even  were  not  so  rich.      Ami  if  anyone  had  them  all,  the  rolls 
were  all  separate."     Wildehoci,  p.  50. 
10 


146  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

Bishop  Cosin  *  and  Dr.  Thornwell.2  In  every  instance 
of  alleged  citation  it  appears  upon  inspection,  either  (1) 
that  the  resemblance  is  not  so  close  as  to  show  that  one 
passage  has  borrowed  from  the  other,  or  to  preclude  the 
idea  that  both  have  been  independently  conceived,  par- 
ticularly if  the  thought  expressed  is  some  ordinary  truth 
of  biblical  faith  or  morals.  Or  else  (2)  the  apocryphal 
passage  is  itself  conformed  to  one  in  the  canonical 
books  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  it  is  the  latter,  not  the 
former,  which  the  New  Testament  writer  had  in  mind. 

Bleek,  in  his  elaborate  article  written  to  justify  the 
retention  of  the  Apocrypha  as  an  appendix  to  the  Old 
Testament,3  freely  admits  that  there  are  no  citations, 
properly  speaking,  of  these  books  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  claims  (p.  336)  that  "  most  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament writings  exhibit  more  or  less  certain  traces  of  an 
acquaintance  with  our  Apocrypha,  and  reminiscences 
from  them,"  and  (p.  349)  "  unmistakable  allusions  to 
their  contents,  and  manifest  traces  of  their  influence  on 
the  conceptions,  mode  of  expression  and  language  of  the 
New  Testament  writers."  Of  this  he  admits  that  there 
is  no  "  convincing  proof,"  only  a  high  degree  of  "  prob- 
ability." The  passages  to  which  he  refers  as  illustrative 
of  his  position  contain  some  coincidences  in  thought 
and  expression,  e.g.,  James  i.  19,  Ecclus  v.  11 ;  Rom.  ix. 


1  Scholastical  History  of  the  Canon,  pp.  23-28.  The  following  are 
alleged  as  parallels :  Wisd.  ix.  13,  Rom.  xi.  34  (Isa.  xl.  13)  ;  Wisd.  vii. 
26,  Heb.  i.  3 ;  Wisd.  iv.  10,  Heb.  xi.  5  (Gen.  v.  24) ;  Wisd.  vi.  3, 
Rom.  xiii.  1  (Prov.  viii.  15,  16);  Wisd.  vi.  7,  Rom.  ii.  11  (Deut.  x.  17); 
Ecclus.  xiv.  17,  James  i.  10,  1  Pet.  i.  24  (Isa.  xl.  6,  7);  Tobit  iv.  7, 
Luke  xi.  41 ;  Tob.  iv.  12,  1  Thess.  iv.  3 ;  Tob.  iv.  15,  Mat.  vii.  12 ; 
Baruch  iv.  7,  1  Cor.  x.  20  (Dent  xxxii.  17);  and  others  like  them. 

2  Arguments  of  Romanists  Discussed  and  Refuted,  pp.  162-174. 

3  Ueber  die  Stellung  dor  Apokrypben  des  alten  Testamentes  im 
Christlichen  Kanon,  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken  for  1853,  pp.  267- 
354. 


THE   CANON   OF   CHRIST   AND   IIIS   APOSTLES      147 

21,  Wisdom  xv.  7  (cf.  Jor.  xviii.  6);  Eph.  vi.  13-17, 
Wisd.  v.  17-20  ;  John  vi.  35,  Ecclus.  xxiv.  21,  which  may 
be  purely  accidental,  or  may  betray  an  acquaintance 
with  these  writings  that  has  consciously  or  unconsciously 
affected  the  form  of  statement.  But  if  all  for  which 
Bleek  contends  were  conceded,  it  would  amount  to 
nothing  more  than  that  the  sacred  writers  were  aware 
of  the  existence  of  some  of  the  apocrypha]  books  and 
approved  certain  sentiments  expressed  in  them.  And 
this  is  very  far  from  ascribing  to  fchem  divine  authority 
or  canonical  standing.  Stier,  who  goes  far  beyond 
Bleek  in  tracing  a  supposed  connection  between  the 
New  Testament  writers  and  the  Apocrypha,  neverthe- 
less remarks,  "  It  is  unconditionally  Limited  to  bare 
allusion,  and  never  passes  over  to  actual  citation."  l 

In  Heb.  xi.  35b,  "  Others  were  tortured,  not  ac- 
cepting their  deliverance  ;  that  they  might  obtain  a 
better  resurrection,"  there  is  prominent  though  not  ex- 
clusive reference  to  the  martyrdom  of  Elcazar  and  the 
mother  with  her  seven  sons,  of  which  an  account  is 
given  in  2  Mace.  vi.  18-vii.  42.  This  is  a  recognition 
of  the  historical  truth  of  the  facts  thus  referred  to,  but 
does  not  imply  the  canonicity  of  the  book  in  which  they 
are  recorded. 

"  They  were  sawn  asunder  "  (ver.  37),  may  allude  in 
part  at  least  to  the  martyrdom  of  Isaiah,  if  he  was  in- 
deed put  to  death  in  this  manner  by  Manasseh,  agree- 
ably to  Jewish  tradition.  But  the  sacred  writer  surely 
does  not  canonize  hereby  any  fabulous  account  of  the 
transaction. 

It  is  farther  claimed  that  there  aro  several  direct 

quotations  from  Pseudepigrapha  in  the  New  Testament, 

made  in  the  same   manner  as   those  which  are  taken 

from  the  canonical  books.     The  most  noted  of  these  is 

Quoted  by  Oehler,  Herzog  Encyk.,  VII.,  p.  267. 


I 


148  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

Jude  vs.  14,  15.  "  And  to  these  also  Enoch,  the  sev- 
enth from  Adam,  prophesied,  saying,  Behold,  the  Lord 
came  with  ten  thousands  of  his  holy  ones  to  execute 
judgment  upon  all,  and  to  convict  all  the  ungodly  of  all 
their  works  of  ungodliness  which  they  have  ungodly 
wrought,  and  of  all  the  hard  things  which  ungodly 
sinners  have  spoken  against  him."  This  appears  to  be 
taken  from  the  Book  of  Enoch,  ch.  ii.  It  is  to  be  ob- 
served, however,  that  this  is,  after  all,  nothing  more  than 
a  natural  inference  from  what  is  recorded  of  Enoch  in 
the  Book  of  Genesis.  A  man  who  walked  with  God  and 
was  specially  favored  by  him,  in  the  midst  of  abound- 
ing wickedness  could  not  do  otherwise  than  rebuke  his 
contemporaries  for  their  ungodliness,  and  warn  them  of 
the  coming  judgment  of  a  holy  God.  In  accepting  this 
legitimate  conclusion  from  the  sacred  narrative,  Jude 
gives  no  sanction  to  the  fabulous  contents  of  the  book 
whose  language  he  has  in  this  single  instance  seen  fit  to 
adopt ;  much  less  does  he,  as  Bleek  affirms,  recognize 
it  "  as  a  genuine  production  and  an  authentic  source  for 
divine  revelation."  He  does  not  do  this  any  more  than 
the  Apostle  Paul  in  citing  a  single  sentence  from  each 
of  the  Greek  poets,  Aratus,  Menander,  and  Epimenides, 
thereby  endorses  all  that  they  have  written,  or  attributes 
to  them  any  sacred  character. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen  found  in  Jude  ver. 
9,  "  Michael,  the  archangel,  when  contending  with  the 
devil  he  disputed  about  the  body  of  Moses,  durst  not 
bring  against  him  a  railing  judgment,  but  said  The 
Lord  rebuke  thee,"  a  quotation  from  the  Assumption  of 
Moses.  This  suggestion  cannot  be  verified,  as  the  book 
is  not  now  in  existence,  and  its  origin  is  unknown.  But 
Jude's  language  finds  a  ready  explanation  in  Zech.  iii. 
1, 2,  where  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  contending  with  Satan 
on  behalf  of  the  people  (figuratively  styled  the  body  of 


THE   CANON   OF   CHRIST   AND    HIS    APOSTLES      149 

Moses,  after  the  analogy  of  the  Church  as  the  body  of 

Christ),  says  to  him,  The  Lord  rebuke  thee. 

James  iv.  6  in  the  A.  V.  reads,  "  Do  ye  think  that 
the  Scripture  saith  in  vain,  The  spirit  that  dwelleth  in 
us  lusteth  to  envy?  "  This  rendering  has  given  rise  to 
the  conjecture,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  second  clause 
of  the  verse  gives  the  substance  of  sonic  passage  in  the 
Old  Testament,  like  Gen.  vi.  5,  viii.  21 ;  Num.  xi.  1,  29, 
or  Prov.  xxi.  10,  and,  on  the  other,  that  it  is  borrowed 
from  some  writing  now  lost  and  otherwise  unknown. 
But  when  the  passage  is  correctly  rendered,  as  in  the 
E.  V.  (see  marg.),  the  need  of  these  conjectures  disap- 
pears: "Or  think  ye  that  the  Scripture  speaketh  in 
vain?  That  Spirit,  which  he  made  to  dwell  in  us, 
yearneth  for  us  even  unto  jealous  envy."  The  second 
clause  of  the  verse  is  the  Apostle  James'  own  language, 
not  a  citation  from  some  earlier  Scripture.  And  his 
meaning  is,  that  the  jealous  longing  which  Gods  Spirit 
has  for  the  undivided  love  of  men  shows  it  to  be  no 
vain  or  unmeaning  utterance  when  the  Scriptures  rep- 
resent the  love  of  the  world  as  incompatible  with  the 
love  of  God. 

1  Cor.  ii.  9,  "  As  it  is  written,  Things  which  eye  saw 
not,  and  ear  heard  not,  and  which  entered  not  into  the 
heart  of  man,  whatsoever  things  God  prepared  for  them 
that  love  him,"  is  a  slightly  modified  citation  of  Isa. 
lxiv.  4,  "Men  have  not  heard,  nor  perceived  by  the 
ear,  neither  hath  the  eye  seen,  a  God  beside  thee  who 
worketh  for  him  that  waiteth  for  him."  It  was  so 
understood  by  Jerome,  and  before  him  by  ('lenient  of 
Kome,  who,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  repeats 
these  words  of  Paul,  only  bringing  them  into  closer 
accord  with  Isaiah  by  substituting  "them  that  wait  for 
him  "  for  "  them  that  love  him."  There  is  no  occasion, 
therefore,  for  Origen's  conjecture,  repeated  by  some  in 


150  GENERAL    INTRODUCTION 

modern  times,  that  it  is  borrowed  from  the  lost  Apoca- 
lypse of  Elias. 

Eph.  v.  14,  "  Wherefore  he  saith,  Awake,  thou  that 
sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead,  and  Christ  shall 
shine  upon  thee,"  is  simply  a  paraphrase  of  Isa.  lii.  1, 
"  Awake,  awake,  O  Zion,"  combined  with  lx.  1,  "  Arise, 
shine,  for  thy  light  is  come,  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord 
is  risen  upon  thee."  The  call  "awake"  is  impliedly 
addressed  to  a  sleeper,  and  "arise "  to  one  that  is  dead, 
and  the  shining  comes  from  the  light  and  glory  of  the 
Lord.  It  is  just  such  an  adaptation  as  is  made  of  Ps. 
lxviii.  18  in  iv.  8  of  the  same  Epistle,  where  "  ascend- 
ing on  high  "  is  said  to  imply  previous  "  descent  into 
the  lower  parts  of  the  earth."  It  is  of  small  moment 
whether  this  paraphrase  of  Isaiah  was  made  by  the 
apostle  himself,  or,  as  some  have  supposed,  by  an 
early  Christian  poet,  whose  language  Paul  borrows.  In 
either  case  there  is  no  occasion  for  the  conjecture  of 
Epiphanius,  and  those  who  have  followed  him  in  mod- 
ern times,  that  it  is  taken  from  the  lost  Apocalypse  of 
Elias. 

John  vii.  38,  "He  that  believeth  on  me,  as  the  Script- 
ure hath  said,  out  of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  living 
water."  These  precise  words  are  not  found  elsewhere. 
The  thought  expressed  is  the  familiar  biblical  truth 
that  the  true  believer  shall  be  blessed  and  be  a  bless- 
ing. And  the  emblem  employed  to  represent  this 
blessing  and  its  ever-widening  influence,  that  of  peren- 
nial streams  of  living  water,  is  one  of  frequent  occur- 
rence in  the  Old  Testament.  In  Isa.  lviii.  11,  "  Thou 
shalt  be  like  a  watered  garden,  and  like  a  spring  of 
water,  whose  waters  fail  not,"  the  same  thought  and 
emblem  are  combined  with  only  a  change  in  the  form 
of  expression,  cf.  Isa.  xliv.  3 ;  Zech.  xiv.  8.  It  has  been 
conjectured   that   the   Saviour   borrowed   these   words 


THE  CANON  OF   CHRIST    AND    III-    APOSTLES      151 

from  some  writing  otherwise  unknown,  which  he  here 
dignifies  by  the  name  of  "  Scripture."  But  the  con- 
jecture has  no  confirmation  from  any  quarter  whatever. 

There  is  no  intimation  from  any  source  th.it  such  a 
writing  ever  existed.  And  the  conjecture  is  wholly 
uncalled  for,  since  the  Saviour's  language  can  bo  ade- 
quately explained  without  it. 

Luke  xi.  49,  "  Therefore,  also,  said  the  wisdom  of 
God,  I  will  send  unto  them  prophets  and  aposth  s  ;  and 
some  of  them  they  shall  kill  and  persecute."  What 
God  in  his  wisdom  is  hero  said  to  have  resolved  to  do  to 
the  Jewish  people  is  in  the  parallel  passage  (Mat.  xxiii. 
34)  introduced  as  the  language  of  Christ  himself  to  his 
immediate  hearers  and  the  people  of  his  time.  There 
is  no  inconsistency  between  these  statements.  What 
God  had  purposed  and  done  in  the  past,  and  was  con- 
tinuing to  do  in  the  present,  is  identical  with  what 
Christ  was  now  actually  doing.  He  was  in  this  simply 
putting  into  effect  the  will  of  his  Father.  Tho  refer- 
ence in  Luke  is  not  to  some  particular  passage  in 
which  these  precise  words  occur,  but  to  the  whole 
course  of  God's  dealings  with  this  people,  in  which  his 
purpose  in  this  matter  was  exhibited.  The  assumption 
that  Christ  quotes  these  words  from  some  writing  now 
lost  is  altogether  groundless. 

In  2  Tim.  iii.  8,  the  magicians  of  Egypt  who  with- 
stood Moses  are  called  "Jannes  and  Jambres." 
Whether  these  names  were  actually  borne  by  them  or 
not,  these  were  their  familiar  designations  among  tin4 
Jews,  as  appears  from  the  use  made  of  them  in  the 
Targum  of  Jonathan.  Paul  employs  these  names  com- 
monly given  to  them  as  sufficient  to  identify  the  per- 
sons to  whom  he  referred.  There  is  no  necessity, 
therefore,  to  suppose  that  he  is  here  quoting  "a  lost 
book  on  the  times  of  Moses." 


li*)2  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

Whatever  explanation  be  adopted  of  the  occurrence 
of  "Jeremiah,"  in  Mat.  xxvii.  9,  where  "Zechariah" 
might  have  been  expected,  there  is  no  need  of  resort- 
ing for  a  solution  to  Jerome's  statement  in  his  com- 
mentary on  this  passage,  "Legi  nuper  in  quodam 
Hebraico  volumine,  quod  Nazarenaa  sectae  mihi  Hebraeus 
obtulit,  Jereiniae  apocryphum,  in  quo  haec  ad  verbum 
scripta  reperi."  The  probability  is  that  this  passage 
was  inserted  in  the  apocryphal  Jeremiah  from  the  Gos- 
pel of  Matthew.  There  is  not  the  slightest  reason  for 
believing  that  the  evangelist  borrowed  it  from  this 
source,  of  whose  origin  and  history  nothing  is  known. 

From  this  review  of  the  whole  case,  it  will  appear  with 
how  little  reason  Wildeboer  asserts  (p.  51),  "  A  number  of 
reminiscences  and  quotations  from  apocryphal  writings 
prove  very  certainly  that  the  New  Testament  writers 
recognized  no  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  agreeing 
with  ours."  And  (p.  53),  "  Many  passages  from  apocry- 
phal writings  were  present  to  the  mind  of  the  N.  T. 
authors,  which  they  often  accorded  equal  weight  with 
texts  from  the  O.  T.  The  apocrypha  in  question  are 
not  even  those  of  the  LXX. ;  for  precisely  in  the  actual 
quotations  writings  are  used  which  are  not  found  in  the 
manuscripts  of  the  LXX.  It  is  manifest  from  this  that 
most  of  the  N.  T.  writers  gave  to  the  notion  of  '  Sacred 
Scripture '  an  even  wider  range  than  most  of  the  Alex- 
andrians." And  (p.  56),  "  All  the  facts  are  explained  by 
the  hypothesis  that  in  Jesus'  days  the  competent  au- 
thorities had  not  yet  defined  the  canon ;  that  only  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets  enjoyed  undisputed  authority; 
that  beside  the  Psalms,  Daniel,  and  other  books  of  the 
Kethubhim,  many  apocryphal  writings  also  were  freely 
read ;  but  that  over  against  this  the  schools  were  be- 
ginning to  restrict  and  regulate  their  use.  To  this  au- 
thority of  the  schools  the  Lord  and  his  disciples  would 


THE  CANON   OF  CHRIST  AND   Ills   APOSTLES      153 

readily  submit,  and,  if  questioned,  would  have  given  au 
answer  not  very  different  from  tho  later  Jewish  enu- 
meration." 

It  has  been  shown  that  our  Lord  and  the  writers  of  tho 
New  Testament  recognize  the  divine  authority  of  tho 
books  esteemed  sacred  by  the  Jews  abundantly  and  ex- 
plicitly. They  appeal  to  them  as  the  word  of  God  and  . 
the  standard  of  truth  and  duty,  as  they  never  do  to  any  ^x^ 
other  writings  whatever.  It  may  be  that  their  language 
exhibits  acquaintance  with  tho  Apocrypha^  but  they 
never  quote  them,  nor  make  any  such  use  of  them  as 
implies  that  they  regarded  them  as  divinely  authorita- 
tive, or  placed  them  in  this  respect  on  a  level  with  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Tho  Epistle  to  tho  He- 
brews refers  to  martyrdoms  related  in  Maccabees,  and 
adds  them  to  a  series  of  illustrations  of  tho  power  of 
faith  drawn  from  the  Scriptures  ;  but  it  does  not  on  this 
account  rank  Maccabees  with  the  Scriptures.  Histor- 
ical facts  may  be  attested  by  profane  as  well  as  by  sacra  I 
sources.  Jude,  without  vouching  either  for  the  genuine- 
ness or  the  divine  authority  of  the  Book  of  Enoch, 
makes  use  of  its  language  to  state  a  truth  which  may  be 
plainly  inferred  from  the  record  in  Genesis.  Other 
quotations  are  alleged  from  Pseudepigrapha,  but  it  has 
been  showm  by  an  examination  of  each  case  in  particu- 
lar that  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  on  which  to 
base  such  an  assertion.  Wildeboer  indeed  says  (p.  51), 
"The  fact  that  the  Ni  T.  writers  quote  from  apocrypha] 
books  [it  is  plain  from  the  connection  that  this  term  is 
here  used  in  the  sense  of  pseudepigraphieal]  can  only  be 
denied  by  dogmatic  prejudice."  But  he  forgets  that 
what  he  is  pleased  to  call  "  dogmatic  prejudice,"  viz., 
a  firm  persuasion  that  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
were  specifically  different  from  other  Jewish  writings, 
was  shared  by  the  Jews  generally  and  by  tho  New  Tes- 


154  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

tament  writers  as  well ;  so  that  the  absence  of  such  a 
"dogmatic  prejudice"  cannot  be  essential  to  an  un- 
biassed and  sympathetic  judgment  of  matters  in  which 
they  are  concerned.  The  submission  of  "  the  Lord  and 
his  disciples"  "to  the  authority  of  the  schools,"  which 
he  here  so  naively  asserts,  is  repelled  with  a  display  of 
pious  fervor  and  holy  indignation  on  pp.  153  f.,  where 
he  falsely  imputes  it  to  those  who  are  not  content  to 
follow  the  critics  blindly  in  their  baseless  theories  re- 
specting the  canon.     See  p.  144,  note. 

It  is  further  urged  that  the  limits  of  the  canon  were 
not  yet  definitely  fixed  in  the  time  of  our  Lord,  and 
that  consequently  his  recognition  of  the  acknowledged 
Jewish  Scriptures  cannot  cover  books  which  were  then 
in  dispute.  Thus  Kobertson  Smith  (p.  187):  "It  is 
matter  of  fact  that  the  position  of  several  books  was 
still  subject  of  controversy  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  was 
not  finally  determined  till  after  the  fall  of  the  Temple 
and  the  Jewish  state.  Before  that  date  the  Hagiographa 
did  not  form  a  closed  collection,  with  an  undisputed  list 
of  contents,  and  therefore  the  general  testimony  of  Christ 
and  the  apostles  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  cannot 
be  used  as  certainly  including  books  like  Esther,  Can- 
ticles, and  Ecclesiastes,  which  were  still  disputed  among 
the  orthodox  Jews  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  to  which 
the  New  Testament  never  makes  reference."  But  the 
Talmudic  disputations  here  referred  to  do  not  disprove 
the  existence  of  a  definitely  determined  canon  of  long 
standing.  They  are  the  expression  of  individual  doubts 
concerning  particular  books,  based  on  a  wrong  view  of 
their  contents  as  inconsistent  with  the  position  accorded 
to  them,  and  which  were  corrected  by  giving  them  a 
proper  interpretation.  They  are  of  no  more  weight, 
accordingly,  than  like  doubts,  on  similar  grounds,  which 
have  been  entertained  in  modern  times.     Nothing  that 


THE   CANON   OF   CHRIST   AND    HIS    APOSTLES       155 

has  been  advanced  to  the  contrary  can  annul  the 
evident  fact  that  Christ  and  his  a} ►ostlefl  did  give  their 
attestation  to  the  canon  commonly  received  among  the 
Jews.  They  distinguished,  indeed,  between  the  tem- 
porary form  and  the  enduring  substance  of  the  Old 
Testament.  It  was  an  inchoate  revelation,  and,  as  sueli, 
had  the  imperfection  which  attaches  to  an  unfinished 
structure.  There  was  inuch  in  it  which  was  designed 
to  answer  a  transient  purpose,  and  when  that  purpose 
was  accomplished  the  obligation  ceased,  Acts  xv.  24 ; 
Gal.  iii.  24,  25.  Some  tilings  were  tolerated  for  a  sea- 
son because  their  "hardness  of  heart"  unfitted  the 
people  to  receive  anything  better,  Mat.  xix.  8.  Some, 
things  were  justifiable  in  saints  of  the  former  dispensa- 
tion which  were  not  to  be  imitated  by  the  disciples  of 
Christ,  with  the  fuller  disclosures  made  to  them  of  the 
love  and  grace  of  God  and  the  true  spirit  of  the  Gospel, 
Luke  ix.  54-56.  The  teachings  of  the  Old  Testament 
were  feeble  and  elementary,  as  compared  with  the  more 
advanced  lessons  of  the  New,  Gal.  iv.  9 ;  Heb.  x.  1. 
Nevertheless,  the  Old  Testament  was  the  word  of  God 
for  the  time  then  present.  It  was  divinely  adapted  to 
its  special  end  of  preparing  the  way  for  the  coming  and 
the  work  of  Christ.  It  was  the  foundation  upon  which 
the  Gospel  was  built,  and  was  precisely  fitted  for  the 
superstructure  to  be  erected  upon  it.  Christ  himself 
said,  "  Think  not  that  I  came  to  destroy  the  law  or  the 
prophets;  I  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  For 
verily  I  say  unto  you,  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away, 
one  jot  or  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law  till  all 
things  be  accomplished,"  Mat.  v.  17,  18.  The  Apostle 
Paul  declares  of  himself  that  he  "believed  all  things 
which  are  according  to  the  law  and  which  are  written  in 
the  prophets,"  Acts  xxiv.  14,  and  that  he  "said  nothing 
but  what  the  prophets  and  Moses  did  say  should  come," 


156  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

xxvi.  22.  And  lie  was  careful  to  show  that  the  doctrines 
upon  which  he  insisted  were  "  witnessed  by  the  law  and 
the  prophets,"  Rom.  iii.  21.  In  its  true  intent  and  the 
real  essence  of  its  teaching  the  Old  Testament  is  of  per- 
petual validity.  Its  temporary  institutions  are  no  longer 
binding.  But  the  types  and  prophecies  of  the  coming 
Saviour  still  point  to  him  as  unerringly  as  ever.  The 
elementary  lessons  of  the  early  time  have  been  supple- 
mented by  later  and  higher  instructions,  but  are  not 
superseded  by  them.  The  partial  and  the  relative  still 
maintains  its  place,  and  fits  into  the  absolute  and  the 
perfect  which  has  since  been  revealed.  Truth  imper- 
fectly disclosed  is  still  true  to  the  full  extent  to  which 
it  goes,  and  is  not  annulled  but  absorbed  when  the  full 
truth  is  made  known.  This  is  a  necessary  incident  to 
any  course  of  instruction  or  training  which  is  wisely 
adapted  to  the  growing  capacities  of  the  pupil.  The 
Old  Testament  had  its  peculiar  mission  to  the  chosen 
people  before  Christ  came.  It  has  its  mission  still  as 
"  living  oracles  "  of  God,  Acts  vii.  38,  to  all  the  world 
through  all  time. 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH 

The  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  sanctioned  by  the 

Lord  Jesus  and  his  apostles  must,  beyond  all  doubt 
or  question,  be  accepted  as  the  true  one  l>\  those  who 
acknowledge  their  divine  authority.  Even  Bellarmiii  : 
acknowledges  that  no  books  are  canonical  but  those 
which  the  apostles  approved  and  delivered  to  the 
Church. 

A  question  here  arises  between  Roman  Catholics  and 
Protestants  as  to  the  true  extent  of  the  Christian  canon. 
The  former  contend  that  in  addition  to  those  which  are 
contained  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  there  are  seven  books 
and  parts  of  two  others  which  rightfully  have  a  place 
in  the  canon  of  the  Church.  The  books  in  dispute, 
commonly  denominated  the  Apocrypha,  are  Tobit, 
Judith,  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticns  or  Sirach,  Baruch,  1st 
and  2d  Maccabees,  together  with  certain  chapters  added 
to  Esther  and  Daniel  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  Bibles, 
which  are  not  in  the  Hebrew.2 

1  De  Verbo  Dei,  I.,  20.  Other  Romanist  authorities,  however,  hare 
admitted  that  the  apocryphal  books  have  no  express  New  Testament 
sanction.  Thus  Catherinns  one  of  the  Leading  spirits  in  the  Conned! 
of  Trent,  in  his  Opusc.  de  Script.  Canonicis,  says,  "There  art-  many 
b^oks  of  the  Old  Testament,  so  called,  and  which  are  truly  regarded 
as  such,  of  which  no  testimony  exists,  as  is  evident  enough,  that  they 
were  approved  by  the  apostles  "  And  Btapleton,  De  Antorit  S.  Script., 
II.,  4,  14,  M  Wisdom.  Ecclesiasticns,  Tobit,  Judith,  and  other  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  were  not  confirmed  in  the  times  of  the  Apostli 
Quoted  by  Cosin,  p.  2'.\. 

*  The  Apocrypha  of  the  English  Bible  contains,  in  addition.  1st  and 

107 


158  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

It  has  been  claimed  that  the  apostolic  sanction  of 
these  books  must  be  presumed,  inasmuch  as  thej  were 
accepted  as  the  inspired  word  of  God  by  the  Christian 
Church,  which  would  not  have  been  the  case  unless  by 
the  direction  and  authority  of  the  apostles.  This  brings 
us  to  inquire  into  the  history  of  the  canon  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  and  we  shall  find  there,  too,  when  the  evi- 
dence is  properly  sifted  and  correctly  explained,  that 
the  same  books,  and  no  others,  were  received  as  in  the 
proper  sense  inspired  and  authoritative  which  had  been 
accepted  by  the  Jews  and  acknowledged  by  our  Lord 
and  his  apostles.  But  if  it  were  otherwise,  this  should 
not  disturb  our  conclusion  already  reached.  If  it  should 
prove  to  be  the  case  that  the  Church  had  fallen  into  er- 
ror with  regard  to  the  canon,  as  it  has  done  in  regard  to 
other  matters,  its  departures  from  the  infallible  and  au- 
thoritative teaching  of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  would 
be  no  more  binding  in  one  case  than  in  the  other. 

Before  entering  upon  the  inquiry  into  the  belief  and 
practice  of  the  Christian  Church  in  this  matter,  it  will  be 
necessary  to  say  a  few  words  respecting  the  meaning  of 
the  terms  "  canonical "  and  "  apocryphal,"  which  are 
constantly  met  with  in  the  discussion  of  this  subject. 
These  words  are  used  by  Christian  writers  of  the  early 
ages  in  different  senses;  and  it  is  important  to  know 
this  in  order  to  understand  their  meaning  correctly. 

"  Canonical  books "  in  ordinary  usage  then,  as  now, 
denoted  books  inspired  of  God,  which  were  given  to  the 
Church  as  her  rule  of  faith  and  life.  But  sometimes 
books  were  called  "  canonical  "  in  a  looser  or  wider 
sense,  including  together  with  the  inspired  books  others 
which  were  denominated  "ecclesiastical,"  because  ap- 
proved by  the  Church  as  useful  and  profitable  religious 

2d  Esdras  (=  3d  and   4th  Esdras  of  the  Vulgate)  and  the  Prayer  of 
Manaseeh,  which  are  not  aceounted  canonical  by  Romanists. 


THE   CANON   OF  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH        lo9 

books,  and  commended  to  Christian  people.  In  the 
former  sense,  the  term  "canonical"  stands  opposed  to 
all  uninspired  productions.  In  the  latter  sense  it  in- 
cludes certain  books  which  were  confessedly  uninspired, 
and  not  properly  speaking  authoritative,  bnt  stands 
opposed  to  such  as  were  pernicious  and  heretical.  When 
cases  occur  in  which  the  word  is  used  in  this  latter 
sense,  the  proof  will  bo  furnished  that  such  is  actually 
the  meaning  intended. 

Gieseler  *  instituted  a  careful  inquiry  into  the  meaning 
of  "  apocryphal "  in  the  early  Church,  the  result  of 
which  Bleek2  sums  up  as  follows:  "Originally  this 
designation  seems  not  to  have  been  used  in  a  bad  sense, 
and  to  have  been  opposed  not  to  canonical,  but  to  open 
or  public,  in  reference  to  such  writings  as  were  assumed 
or  asserted  to  have  been  preserved  and  perpetuated 
from  early  times  by  the  way  of  secret  transmission. 
The  word  appears  to  have  been  especially  in  use  in  this 
sense  among  the  Gnostics  for  writings  on  which  they 
chiefly  relied  for  their  doctrine,  and  which  they  attrib- 
uted to  distinguished  men  of  former  ages.  So  Clement 
of  Alexandria  says  ('  Strom.,'  i.  15,  GO)  that  the  adher- 
ents of  Prodicus  boasted  that  they  ix>ssessed  apocryphal 
books  of  Zoroaster.  But  the  greater  the  stress  which 
the  heretics  laid  upon  these  writings,  the  more  they 
were  suspected  for  this  very  reason  by  the  teachei  3  of 
the  orthodox  Church.  They  regarded  them  without 
hesitation — and  in  general,  correctly — as  late,  counter- 
feit, patched-up  productions  of  heretical  contents,  so 
that  with  them  the  notion  of  counterfeit  was  naturally 
associated  with  apocryphal.  Thus  Iremeus  ('  Adv.  1 1  a  r.' 
i.  20),  '  apocryphal  and  spurious  writings.'  Apostolical, 
Constitutions  (vi.  16),  '  Apocryphal  books  of  Moses,  and 

1  Was  heisst  apokiyphisch  ?  in  the  Studien  und  Kritikcn  for  ]S29. 
-'Studien  und  Kritiken  for  1853,  pp.  2«>7  ff. 


160  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

Enoch,  and  Adam,  Isaiah  and  David  and  Elijah  and 
the  three  patriarchs,  destructive  and  hostile  to  the 
truth.'  In  the  first  centuries  this  designation  is  never 
used  in  reference  to  those  writings,  or  any  of  them, 
which  we  understand  by  the  Apocrypha  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. Hence  these  books,  such  as  Wisdom,  Eccle- 
siasticus,  etc.,  are  expressly  distinguished  both  by  Ath- 
anasius  and  by  Kuffiii  from  the  canonical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  but  quite  as  expressly  from  apocryphal 
writings,  and  treated  as  a  middle  class — in  Athanasius, 
'  books  that  are  read  ; '  in  Euffin,  '  ecclesiastical  books.' 

"It  is  different  with  Jerome,  who  embraces  under 
Apocrypha  all  those  writings  which,  by  their  title  or 
by  partial  recognition  in  the  Church,  make  a  claim  to 
be  put  on  a  par  with  the  canonical  books,  to  which  they 
are  not  rightfully  entitled ;  and  he  does  this  irrespective 
of  the  contents  of  these  writings,  whether  they  are 
wholly  objectionable  or  at  least  partially  to  be  recom- 
mended for  reading.  Thus,  he  says,  whatever  is  addi- 
tional to  these  books  translated  from  the  Hebrew  is  to 
be  placed  among  the  Apocrypha." 

Of  the  various  ways  by  which  the  early  Church  ren- 
ders its  testimony  to  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament, 
the  most  explicit  and  satisfactory  is  the  catalogues  of 
the  sacred  books.  Several  of  these  catalogues  have 
been  preserved  from  individual  writers  of  eminence 
and  from  councils ;  the  latter  have  the  advantage  of 
being  the  joint  testimony  of  considerable  numbers, 
representing  an  entire  province,  or  a  still  larger  district 
of  country. 

The  oldest  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, now  extant,  is  that  of  Melito,1  Bishop  of  Sardis 
(after  a.d.  171),  and  this  is  the  only  catalogue  dating 
from  the  second  century.  Melito  informs  us  that  he 
1  Preserved  by  Eusebius  in  his  Eeclesiastical  History,  IV.,  26. 


THE   CANON    OF   THE   CIIIMSTIAN    CHURCH         101 

had  travelled  iuto  Judea,  and  mail'  diligent  inqniries 
therein  order  to  arrive  at  certainty  upon  the  Bubject 
His  list  of  books  is  the  following:  "  Five  of  M 
Genesis,  Exodns,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy; 
Joshua,  Judges,  lluth,  four  of  Kingdoms/  two  of  Chron- 
icles, Psalms  of  David,  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  which  La 
also  Wisdom,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs,  Job;  the 
Prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  the  Twelve  in  one  book, 
Daniel,  Ezekiel,  Ezra."  After  the  Proverbs  of  Solo- 
mon occur  the  words  i)  zeal  ao(f)ia,  from  which  the 
attempt  has  been  made  to  draw  an  argument  for  the 
apocryphal  Book  of  Wisdom.  But  the  words  will  bear 
no  other  translation  than  "the  Proverbs  of  Solomon, 
which  is  also  Wisdom,"  i.e.,  this  is  another  name  given 
to  the  Book  of  Proverbs.  Lamentations  does  not  occur 
in  this  list,  as  that  was  reckoned  a  part  of  Jeremiah. 
Nehemiah  also  is  not  separately  mentioned,  as  it  was 
included  in  Ezra.  There  is  more  diversity  of  opinion 
about  another  omission,  that  of  Esther.  Some  have 
thought  that  this  was  from  inadvertence,  either  on 
the  part  of  Melito  or  of  some  subsequent  transcriber. 
This  is  not  likely,  however,  as  the  same  book  is  want- 
ing in  some  other  catalogues.  Others  think  that  it  was 
included  with  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  which  belong  to  the 
same  period  of  the  history;  but  this  lacks  confirma- 
tion. Others  find  an  explanation  in  the  disputes  among 
the  Jews  as  to  the  canonicity  of  this  book.  Although 
those  who  lay  most  stress  upon  these  disputations  must 
acknowledge  that  at  this  time  Esther  was  included  in 

1  Four  books  of  Kingdoms  in  the  LXX.  correspond  to  Samuel  and 
Kings  in  the  Hebrew.     Westcott  (p.    124)  remarks:  "It  is  evident 

from  the  names,  the  number,  and  the  order  of  the  books,  that  it  wu 
not  taken  directly  from  the  Hebrew,  but  from  the  LXX.  revised  by 
the  Hebrew."  From  this  lie  infers  that  "the  Palestinian  LXX.,  the 
Greek  Bible  which  was  used  by  our  Lord  and  the  Apostles,"  contained 
simply  the  books  which  arc  found  in  this  catuloguc. 
11 


162  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

the  Hebrew  canon,  it  is  possible  that  the  suspicions  thus 
engendered  may  have  found  a  partial  echo  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church ;  or,  what  is  quite  as  probable,  Melito  may 
have  been  betrayed  into  the  error  of  rejecting  the 
entire  book  from  the  circumstance  that  the  Greek 
Esther  begins  with  an  apocryphal  section,  which  is  not 
in  the  canon  of  the  Jews.  The  list  of  Melito  numbers 
22,  if  reckoned  according  to  the  Jewish  mode  of  enu- 
meration. In  common  with  some  other  catalogues, 
which  adhere  to  this  number,  the  place  of  Esther  is  sup- 
plied by  counting  Ruth  separately  instead  of  combining 
it  with  Judges.  Apart  from  its  omission  of  the  Book  of 
Esther,  Melito's  catalogue  corresponds  precisely  with 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  as  Protestants  acknowl- 
edge them ;  and  it  does  not  contain  a  single  one  of 
those  books  which  Romanists  have  added  to  the  canon. 

While  this  is  the  only  list  of  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  which  has  been  preserved  from  the  second 
century,  other  evidences  are  not  wanting  that  the  same 
canon  prevailed  in  other  parts  of  the  Eastern  Church  at 
that  time.  Justin  Martyr,  so  called  because  he  suf- 
fered martyrdom  for  his  faith  a.d.  164,  was  born  in 
Palestine,  and  after  his  conversion  resided  chiefly  in 
Rome,  travelled  extensively,  and  wrote  largely.  He 
quotes  freely  from  the  canonical  books,  but  never  makes 
any  use  of  the  Apocrypha.  And  in  a  controversy  which 
he  had  with  Trypho,  a  Jew  in  Ephesus,  and  in  which 
the  differences  between  Jews  and  Christians  are  dis- 
cussed at  length,  no  allusion  is  made  to  any  difference 
in  their  canon.  And  the  old  Syriac  version,  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  opinion  of  the  ablest  critics,  was  made  in 
this  century,  originally  contained  only  the  canonical, 
none  of  the  apocryphal,  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Passing  to  the  third  century,  we  find  another  cata- 
logue  from   Origen,   the   most  learned   of  the   Greek 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   CHRISTIAN   CI1UKCII         L63 

fathers,  who  was  educated  in  Alexandria  and  died  a1 
Tyre,  a.d.  254,  at  the  age  of  68.  His  catalogue,  like 
that  of  Melito,  is  preserved  by  Eusebius  in  his  "  Eccle- 
siastical  History"  (VI.,  25).  He  reckons  the  number  <»f 
the  books  22,  as  was  done  by  Josephus.  Having 
given  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  names  in  full  of  those 
books  which  he  esteems  canonical,  he  a. Ms  at  tin-  close, 
"And  apart  from  those"  (t.e.,  nol  forming  a  part  of 
the  canon)  "are  the  Books  of  Maccabees."  In  this 
catalogue  of  Origen,  as  we  now  have  it,  the  Minor  I'roph- 
ets  are  omitted.  This  is  evidently,  however,  not  an 
omission  of  Origen  himself,  but  has  arisen  from  inac- 
curate transcription,  for  the  number  Btated  Is  22,  and 
then  21  are  named,  showing  that  one  has  been  left  out. 
And  in  the  ancient  Latin  translation  of  this  passage  by 
Kuffin,  the  Minor  Proplitts  are  mentioned  in  their  proper 
place.  The  catalogue  of  Origen,  thus  corrected,  agrees 
again  precisely  with  the  canon  which  we  possess,  ex- 
cept in  one  remarkable  addition,  viz.,  that  he  includes 
in  the  Book  of  Jeremiah  Lamentations  and  his  Epistle. 
Some  have  supposed  that  Origen  here  intends  tin? 
Epistle  of  Jeremiah  addressed  to  the  captives  at  Baby- 
lon, which  is  found  in  chaps,  xxvii.-xxix.  of  the  canon- 
ical book,  and,  of  course,  does  belong  to  the  canon.  It 
is  more  probable,  however,  that  he  means  an  apocry- 
phal epistle,  bearing  his  name,  which  is  found  in  the 
Vulgate  as  the  last  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Baruch  ;  and 
in  this  case  he  has  been  betrayed  into  the  belief  that 
this  forged  letter  was  a  genuine  production  of  the 
prophet.  This  is  a  mistake,  however,  which  is  easily 
corrected ;  for  Origen,  like  Melito,  professedly  follows 
the  Hebrew  canon,  and  this  apocryphal  letter  never  had 
a  place  in  that  canon. 

We  have  no  other  catalogue  from  this  century,  but 
we  have  what  is  equivalent  to  one  in  Tertullian,  the 


164  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

first  of  the  Latin  fathers  whose  writings  have  been 
preserved.  He  says  that  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment number  24,  and  finds  a  symbolical  allusion  to 
them  in  the  24  elders  round  about  the  throne  and  the 
24  wings  of  the  four  living  creatures  spoken  of  in  the 
Revelation.  This  is  the  number  of  the  sacred  books  as 
stated  in  the  Talmud,  and  in  many  other  ancient  cata- 
logues which  correspond  with  the  Jewish  canon.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  of  its  identity  with  that  canon,  and  it 
leaves  no  room  for  the  admission  of  the  Apocrypha. 

We  thus  have  in  the  second  and  third  centuries  testi- 
monies from  the  Eastern  Church  in  Melito  and  the  old 
Syriac  version,  from  the  Greek  Church  in  Origen,  and 
from  the  Latin  Church  in  Tertullian ;  and  all  combine 
to  sanction  the  Protestant  canon  and  to  exclude  the 
Apocrypha. 

Proceeding  to  the  fourth  century,  where  testimonies 
are  more  abundant,  we  shall  find  the  same  thing  cor- 
roborated from  all  parts  of  the  Church.  In  regard  to 
the  so-called  canon  of  Laodicea,  Westcott  says  (p.  170) : 
"  A  decree  was  made  upon  the  sacred  books  at  the 
Synod  of  Laodicea,  a  small  gathering  of  clergy  from 
parts  of  Lydia  and  Phrygia,  which  was  held  about  a.d. 
363.  After  other  disciplinary  ordinances  the  last  canon 
runs  :  '  Psalms  composed  by  private  men  must  not  be 
read  in  the  Church,  nor  books  not  admitted  into  the 
canon,  but  only  the  canonical  books  of  the  New  and 
Old  Testaments.'  To  this  decree,  in  the  printed  edi- 
tions of  the  canons  and  in  most  MSS.,  a  list  of  the  holy 
Scriptures  is  added  which  is  absolutely  identical  with 
Cyril's,  except  as  to  the  position  of  Esther  and  Job,  and 
adding  Baruch  and  the  Letter  to  Jeremiah.  But  this 
list  is,  without  doubt,  a  later  addition.  It  is  omitted  in 
good  Greek  MSS.,  in  two  distinct  Syriac  versions  pre- 
served in  MSS.  of  the  sixth  or  seventh  century,  in  one 


THE   CANON    OF   THE   CHRISTIAN    CHURCH        1G5 

of  the  two  complete  Latin  versions,  and  in  the  old  Bl 
digests  of  the  canons." 

There  are,  however,  catalogues  of  unquestioned  gen- 
uineness from  five  individual  fathers  belonging  to  the 

Greek  or  Oriental  Church,  viz.,  from  Athanasiufl  of 
Alexandria,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Epiphanius  of  Sala- 
mine  in  Cyprus,  Amphilochius  of  Iconium  in  Asia 
Minor,  and  Gregory  Nazianzen  of  Cappadocia,  for  a 
short  time  resident  in  Constantinople  and  appointed 
Patriarch  of  that  city.  To  these  may  be  added  Basil 
the  Great  of  Cappadocia  and  Chrysostom,  the  distin- 
guished preacher  and  Patriarch  of  Constantinople ;  for 
though  they  have  not  left  formal  catalogues,  they  have 
made  statements  which  may  be  considered  equivalent, 
and  which  render  sufficiently  manifest  what  canon  they 
adopted.  For  the  former  says  l  that  the  number  of  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  was  22,  as  they  are  reck- 
oned by  Josephus  and  by  Origen  ;  and  the  latter 2  says  : 
"  All  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  originally 
written  in  Hebrew,  as  all  among  us  confess,"  which 
makes  it  plain  that  he  followed  the  Jewish  canon. 

To  these  testimonies  from  the  Greek  and  Oriental 
Church  may  be  added  three  from  the  Latin  Church, 
Hilary  of  Poitiers  in  France,  Pvuffin  of  Aquileia  in  Italy, 
and  Jerome,  the  most  learned  man  of  his  time,  all  of 
whom  have  left  catalogues  of  the  Old  Testament  books. 

Two  of  these  catalogues,  those  of  Gregory  Nazianzen 
and  Athanasius,  omit  the  Book  of  Esther,  as  was  done 
byMelito;  and  the  omission  may  lie  explained  in  the 
same  way.  Athanasius  even  includes  Esther  among 
the  non-canonical  books,  adding  that  "it  begins  with 
Mordecai's  dream,"  which  is  the  beginning  of  the  apoc- 
ryphal additions.      He  further  states  that  "Esther  is 

1  Philoealia,  oh.  iii.     See  Cosin,  p.  GG. 
-  Honiil.  iv.  in  Gen.     See  Cosin,  p.  70. 


loO  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

canonical  among  the  Hebrews ;  and  as  Ruth  is  reckoned 
as  one  book  with  Judges,  so  Esther  with  some  other 
book."  1  If  he  is  here  to  be  understood  as  intimating 
his  own  agreement  with  what  he  attributes  to  the 
Hebrews,  he  may  simply  mean  that  the  Greek  additions 
to  Esther  are  apocryphal,  and  that  the  remainder  of  the 
book  is  canonical,  and  considered  as  included  in  some 
other  constituent  of  the  canon.  Or  else  he  has  been 
betrayed  into  the  mistake  of  rejecting  the  entire  book 
because  of  these  spurious  additions — a  mistake  which 
finds  ample  correction  in  other  sources,  which  prove 
beyond  a  doubt  that  Esther,  freed  from  these  spurious 
chapters,  rightfully  belongs  to  the  canon. 

Hilary  inserts  in  his  catalogue,  instead  of  the  simple 
name  of  Jeremiah,  Jeremiah  and  the  Epistle,  which  is  to 
be  accounted  for  as  the  same  addition  in  the  catalogue 
of  Origen.  And  so  must  the  addition  found  in  two 
others,  those  of  Athanasius  and  Cyril :  Jeremiah,  Baruch 
and  the  Epistle.  Some  have  thought  that  parts  of  the 
canonical  Book  of  Jeremiah  are  so  called,  those  in  which 
mention  is  made  of  Baruch,  the  personal  attendant  and 
helper  of  the  prophet,  and  in  which  the  letter  is  re- 
corded which  Jeremiah  wrote  to  the  captives  in  Baby- 
lon. It  is  more  probable,  however,  that  they  meant  the 
apocryphal  Book  of  Baruch  and  the  apocryphal  Epistle 
of  Jeremiah  ;  and  in  this  case  they  have  unwittingly 
given  their  sanction  to  a  forgery,  being  misled  by  their 
veneration  for  the  names  attached  to  it  to  give  credit  to 
what  they  never  wrote. 

With  these  easily  explained  exceptions  all  the  cat- 
alogues above  mentioned  sustain  the  Protestant  canon. 
The  Church  of  the  first  four  centuries,  Greek  and  Latin, 
Eastern  and  Western,  in  Asia  Minor,  Syria,  Palestine, 
Alexandria,    Cyprus,   Constantinople,  Carthage,    Italy, 

1  Cosin,  p.  49. 


THE   CANON   OF  TITE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH         167 

and  France,  testifies  in  favor  of  the  same  canon  which 
prevailed  among  the  Jews,  and  which  received  the  in- 
fallible sanction  of  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  and 
which  Protestants  now  embrace. 

It  is  a  mere  evasion  to  say  that  these  fathers  did  not 
design  to  give  the  Christian,  but  the  Jewish  canon. 
These  catalogues  were  intended  for  Christian  readers,  to 
inform  them  in  regard  to  the  books  which  properly  be- 
longed to  the  Old  Testament.  They  do  in  fact  give  the 
Jewish  canon,  but  only  because  that  was  likewise  bind- 
ing on  the  Christian  Church. 

It  has  also  been  said !  that  these  fathers  were  mistaken, 
but  excusable,  because  the  Church  had  not  as  yet  made 
any  formal  decision  in  regard  to  the  extent  of  the  canon 
by  a  general  council.  But  this  is  a  question  which  the 
Church  has  no  inherent  right  to  determine.  Her  only 
function  is  to  hand  down  faithfully  what  was  delivered 
to  her. 

There  are  some  testimonies  near  the  close  of  the 
fourth  century  upon  which  great  stress  has  been  laid, 
as  though  they  sanctioned  the  canonicity  of  the  Apocry- 
pha. But  plausible  as  this  may  appear  at  first  view, 
they  do  not  when  carefully  examined  lend  any  real  sup- 
port to  the  Bomish  canon,  nor  do  they  teach  any- 
thing at  variance  with  the  testimony  already'  gathered 
from  so  many  witnesses.  The  authorities  referred  to  are 
Augustin,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  and  influential 
of  the  fathers  as  a  theologian,  but  of  very  little  ability 
as  a  critic,  and  the  councils  of  Hippo  and  Carthage. 
Westcott  (p.  185)  says  of  them:  "The  first  discussion 
on  the  canon  in  which  Augustin  took  part  was  at  a 
council  at  Hippo,  in  a.d.  393.  The  decision  which  was 
then  made  is  lost,  but  the  statutes  of  the  council  were 
revised  and  confirmed  by  the  council  of  Carthage,  in 

1  Bellarrain,  De  Verbo  Dei,  I.,  10. 


168  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

a.d.  397.  In  the  meantime  Angus  tin  wrote  his  essay 
'  On  Christian  Doctrine,'  in  which  he  treats  of  the 
books  of  Scripture."  These  catalogues  of  the  canonical 
books  are  of  a  uniform  tenor,  containing  the  names 
not  onl}'  of  those  in  the  Hebrew  canon,  but  in  addition 
most  of  those  that  are  reckoned  canonical  by  Roman- 
ists.1 In  regard  to  these  catalogues  it  is  to  be  ob- 
served : 

1.  They  do  not  coincide  precisely  with  the  canon  of 
Rome,  either  in  what  they  admit  or  in  what  they  exclude. 
The  Book  of  Baruch  is  not  found  in  these  lists,  although 
Romanists  regard  it  as  canonical.     On  the  other  hand, 


1  Augustin's  catalogue  is  as  follows  (De  Doctrina  Christiana,  II.,  8) : 
"  Five  of  Moses,  that  is,  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deu- 
teronomy, one  book  of  Joshua,  one  of  Judges,  one  little  book  which 
is  called  Ruth,  which  seems  rather  to  belong  to  the  beginning  of  Kings, 
then  four  of  Kings  and  two  of  Chronicles,  not  following,  but  joined 
as  it  were  alongside  and  going  along  together.  This  is  the  history 
which,  connected  throughout,  contains  the  times  and  order  of  things. 
There  are  others,  as  if  of  a  different  series,  which  are  neither  connected 
with  this  series  nor  among  themselves,  as  Job,  and  Tobit,  and  Esther, 
and  Judith,  and  two  books  of  Maccabees,  and  two  of  Esdras,  which 
seem  rather  to  follow  that  well-arranged  history  ending  with  Kings 
and  Chronicles.  Then  the  Prophets,  among  which  are  one  book  of 
David,  the  Psalms,  and  three  of  Solomon,  Proverbs,  Song  of  Songs, 
and  Ecclesiastes ;  for  those  two  books,  one  of  which  is  entitled  Wis- 
dom and  another  Ecclesiasticus,  are  from  a  certain  resemblance  said 
to  be  Solomon's,  but  Jesus,  the  son  of  Sirach,  is  by  an  unbroken  tra- 
dition declared  to  have  written  them  [this  mistake  as  to  the  authorship 
of  Wisdom  is  corrected  by  Augustin  in  the  second  book  of  his  Re- 
tractationes].  Since,  however,  they  deserved  to  be  received  into  au- 
thority, they  are  to  be  numbered  among  the  prophetical  books.  The 
remainder  are  books  which  are  properly  called  prophets— twelve  indi- 
vidual books  of  prophets  which,  being  connected  together,  since  they 
are  never  separated,  are  regarded  as  one— the  names  of  which  prophets 
are  these :  Hosea,  Joel,  Amos,  Micah,  Nahum,  Habakkuk,  Obadiah, 
Jonah,  Zephaniah,  Haggai,  Zeehariah,  Malachi.  Then  there  are  four 
prophets  of  larger  volume  :  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Daniel,  Ezekiel.  With 
these  forty-four  books  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testament  is  ended." 


THE   CANON   OF  THE  CHRISTIAN   CHURCH        169 

these  lists  make  mention  of  two  books  of  Esdras.  The 
first,  according  to  the  uniform  mode  of  enumeration 
among  the  ancients,  must  embrace  the  books  of  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah.  By  the  second  Book  of  Esdras  in 
these  catalogues  must  accordingly  be  in  tended  that 
which  in  the  Vulgate  is  numbered  3Esdras,  or  in  the 
English  Apocrypha  lEsdras;  and  this  Romanists  do 
not  account  canonical. 

2.  These  are  not  three  independent  testimonies.  It 
should  be  remembered  that  Augustin  was  bishop  of  Hip- 
po, and  Hippo  lay  in  the  vicinity  of  Carthage' ;  and  Au- 
gustin's  influence  was  controlling  in  both  these  councils. 

3.  It  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  a  different 
canon  prevailed  in  Carthage  and  its  vicinity  from  that 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  found  in  all  the  rest  of  the 
Church,  and  in  Carthage  itself  at  an  earlier  date.  If, 
then,  these  catalogues  can  with  any  fairness  be  inter- 
preted in  a  manner  which  shall  bring  them  into  accord 
with  the  general  voice  of  the  Chm-ch  in  this  and  preced- 
ing centuries,  it  certainly  should  be  preferred  to  an 
interpretation  which  assumes  an  irreconcilable  conflict 
between  them. 

4.  Such  an  interpretation  is  not  only  possible,  but  it 
readily  offers  itself,  and  is  in  fact  absolutely  required 
by  the  language  of  these  catalogues  themselves.  There 
is  good  reason  to  believe  that  by  canonical  books  both 
Augustin  and  these  councils  intended,  not  the  canon  in 
its  strict  sense,  as  limited  to  those  books  which  are  in- 
spired and  divinely  authoritative,  but  in  a  more  lax  and 
wider  sense,  as  including  along  with  these  other  books 
which,  though  not  inspired,  were  sanction « -d  and  com- 
mended by  the  Church  as  profitable  and  edifying  relig- 
ious books,  and  suitable  both  for  private  perusal  and 
for  public  reading  in  the  churches.  That  Augustin  un- 
derstands canonical  in  this  lax  sense  is  apparent. 


170  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

a.  As  "Westcott  (p.  185)  says :  "  Augustin's  attention 
seems  to  have  been  directed  toward  the  attainment  of  a 
conciliar  determination  of  the  contents  of  the  Bible  soon 
after  his  conversion.  His  former  connection  with  the 
Manichees,  who  were  especially  addicted  to  the  use  of 
apocryphal  Gospels  and  Acts,  probably  impressed  him 
keenly  with  the  necessity  of  some  such  decision.  The 
wide  circulation  of  the  Manichaean  books  had  already 
moved  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  to  write  upon  the  subject, 
and  afterward  led  the  Spanish  bishops  to  seek  the  as- 
sistance of  the  Eoman  Church  in  checking  their  spread. 
The  fact  is  important,  for  it  explains  the  motive  which 
may  have  led  Augustin  to  hold  the  distinction  between 
the  '  controverted '  and  the  '  acknowledged  '  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  as  of  comparatively  little  moment. 
It  might  have  seemed  well  to  him  if  both  could  be 
placed  in  a  position  wholly  and  forever  separate  from 
the  pernicious  writings  which  had  been  turned  to  heret- 
ical uses." 

b.  Augustin  prefaces  his  catalogue  in  the  following 
manner  : x  "  He  will  be  the  wisest  student  of  the  divine 
Scriptures  who  shall  have  first  read  and  learned  .  .  . 
those  which  are  called  canonical.  For  he  will  read  the 
rest  with  greater  security  when  furnished  with  faith  in 
the  truth,  lest  they  preoccupy  a  mind  as  y et  unstable, 
and  instil  some  ideas  contrary  to  sound  understanding 
by  perilous  fictions  and  fancies.  In  regard  to  the  canon- 
ical Scriptures  let  him  follow  the  authority  of  as  many 
Catholic  Churches  as  possible,  among  which  assuredly 
are  those  which  were  deemed  worthy  to  be  apostolical 
sees,  and  to  have  epistles  addressed  to  them.  He  will, 
therefore,  hold  this  course  in  regard  to  the  canonical 
Scriptures,  that  he  prefer  those  which  are  received  by 

1  Cosin,  p.  102.  I  have  adopted  Westcott' s  translation  of  this  pas- 
sage. 


THE   (ANON    OF   THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH         171 

all  Catholic  Churches  to  those  which  some  do  not  re- 
ceive ',  of  those  again  which  are  not  received  by  all, 
those  which  more  and  more  influential  Churches  receive 

to  those  which  are  held  by  Churches  fewer  in  number  or 
inferior  in  authority.  If,  however,  he  find  some  writings 
maintained  by  more  Churches,  others  by  more  influen- 
tial Churches,  though  this  case  can  hardly  be  realized, 
I  fancy  that  they  must  be  held  to  be  of  equal  authority." 
It  will  be  perceived  that  Augustin  divides  divine  Script- 
ures into  those  which  are  canonical  and  those  which 
contain  perilous  fictions  and  fancies.  And  he  makes 
distinctions  among  canonical  Scriptures,  some  being 
universally  received,  and  others  being  ranked  according 
to  the  number  and  influence  of  the  Churches  that  do 
receive  them.  It  is  evident  that  what  he  calls  canonical 
books  are  not  all  of  the  same  grade  in  his  esteem. 
He  could  not  speak  thus  if  he  regarded  them  all  as  alike 
inspired  of  God. 

c.  Elsewhere  in  his  writings  Augustin  uses  expres- 
sions which  show  that  he  ranked  the  Hebrew  canon 
above  the  books  which  in  his  catalogue  are  associated 
with  it.  Thus  he  says  : l  "  After  Malachi,  Haggai,  Zech- 
ariah,  and  Ezra,  they  had  no  prophets  until  the  advent 
of  the  Saviour ;  wherefore  the  Lord  himself  says,  The 
law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John."  As  the  apocry- 
phal books  were  written  after  prophecy  had  ceased,  he 
could  not  regard  them  as  inspired.  He  Bays  further  : 2 
"Those  things  which  are  not  written  in  the  canon  of 
the  Jews  cannot  be  adduced  with  so  much  confidence 
against  opposers."  Again  he  says  : "  "  All  those  books 
which  prophesy  of  Christ  are  with  the  Jews.  AY<4  bring 
forward  documents  from  the  Jews  to  confound  other 
enemies.      The  Jew  carries  the  document  whence  the 

1  De  Civitate  Dei,  XVII.,  last  chapter. 
s  Ibid.,  ch.  20.  ■  On  Psalm  xlvi. 


172  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

Christian  derives  Iris  faith;  tliey  are  made  our  libra- 
rians." Again  : 1  "  What  is  written  in  the  Book  of  Judith 
the  Jews  are  truly  said  not  to  have  received  into  the 
canon  of  Scripture."  And  speaking  of  other  books  of 
the  same  class  :2  "  They  are  not  found  in  the  canon  which 
the  people  of  God  received,  because  it  is  one  thing  to  be 
able  to  write  as  men  with  the  diligence  of  historians, 
and  another  as  prophets  with  divine  inspiration;  the 
former  pertained  to  the  increase  of  knowledge,  the 
latter  to  authority  in  religion,  in  which  authority  the 
canon  is  kept." 

d.  Augustin's  mind  in  this  matter  is  most  clearly  and 
unambiguously  shown  in  what  he  says  of  the  books  of 
Maccabees : 3  "  The  Jews  do  not  have  this  Scripture 
which  is  called  Maccabees,  as  they  do  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  to  which  the  Lord  bears  testimony  as  to  his 
witnesses.  But  it  is  received  by  the  Church  not  with- 
out advantage,  if  it  be  read  and  heard  soberly,  espe- 
cially for  the  sake  of  the  history  of  the  Maccabees,  who 
suffered  so  much  from  the  hand  of  persecutors  for  the 
sake  of  the  law  of  God."  Augustin  is  here  arguing 
against  the  Circumcelliones,  so  called  from  their  living 
in  cells,  which  they  erected  in  various  parts  of  the  coun- 
try. These  were  a  fanatical  sect,  who  held  it  to  be 
right  to  commit  self-murder,  and  appealed  in  justifica- 
tion to  2  Mace.  xiv.  42  ff.,  where  Razis  is  commended 
for  destroying  his  own  life  to  prevent  his  falling  into 
the  hands  of  his  enemies.  Augustin  says,  in  reply:4 
"  They  are  in  great  straits  for  authorities,  having  only 
this  one  passage  to  which  they  can  appeal  in  all  the 
books  sanctioned  by  the  Church ;  "  and  this  in  a  book 

1  De  Civitate  Doi,  XVIIT.,  ch.  2G. 

2  Ibid.,  ch.  38. 

3  Contra  Epistolam  Gaudentii  Donatistae,  ch.  23. 

4  Epistola  Gl,  ad  Dulcitium. 


THE   CANON   OF   TIIE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH        173 

which  the  Jews  do  not  receive,  to  which  the  Lord  does 
not  bear  testimony,  as  he  does  to  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  and  which  the  Church  receives,  not  as  in- 
spired and  infallibly  authoritative,  but  because  it  re- 
cords the  history  of  men  who  suffered  nobly  for  the 
cause  of  God  ;  and  it  must  "  be  read  and  heard  soberly," 
i.e.,  everything  that  it  contains  must  not  be  accepted 
with  implicit  faith,  but  caution  must  be  exercised,  and 
Christian  discretion  and  an  enlightened  conscience  are 
necessary  to  distinguish  what  in  it  is  right  from  what  is 
wrong.  Self-murder,  though  approved  by  the  Book  of 
Maccabees,  is  not  to  be  justified.  Augustin  also  expresses 
himself  to  the  same  purport  elsewhere  : l  "  The  account 
of  the  times  since  the  restoration  of  the  Temple  is  not 
found  in  the  holy  Scriptures  which  are  called  canon- 
ical, but  in  others,  among  which  are  also  the  books  of 
the  Maccabees,  which  the  Jews  do  not,  but  which  the 
Church  does,  esteem  canonical  on  account  of  the  violent 
and  extraordinary  sufferings  of  certain  martyrs."  Ac- 
cording to  this  passage,  it  appears  that  in  one  sense  of 
the  term  the  Maccabees  were  not  canonical,  in  another 
they  were;  and  the  Church  reckoned  them  canonical, 
not  because  of  their  inspiration,  but  because  of  their 
recording  examples  of  heroic  martyrdom,  such  as  would 
tend  to  nerve  others  to  unfaltering  constancy,  and 
would  be  particularly  useful  in  times  of  persecution. 
In  other  words,  if  canonical  meant  inspired,  the  Macca- 
bees were  not  canonical ;  if  it  meant  books  that  were 
adapted  to  make  a  salutary  religious  impression,  they 
were.  Augustin  being  the  judge,  then,  these  catalogues 
do  not  conflict  with  the  general  voice  of  the  Church  in 
this  and  preceding  centuries  regarding  the  canon  of  tho 
Old  Testament. 

5.  That  the  Council  of  Carthage  did  not  design  to  cut 

1  De  Civitate  Dei,  XVIII.,  ch.  3G. 


174  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

itself  off  from  the  rest  of  the  Church  in  this  matter  is 
plain  from  its  giving  direction  that  the  Church  beyond 
the  sea  be  consulted  in  respect  to  the  confirmation  of  its 
canon.  Another  council  was  held  in  Carthage  a.d.  419, 
and  presided  over  by  Augustin,  which  renewed  the  de- 
cree concerning  the  canon,  and  added,  "Let  this  also 
be  notified  to  our  brother  and  fellow  priest,  Boniface, 
Bishop  of  Rome,  or  to  other  bishops  of  those  parts,  for 
the  purpose  of  confirming  this  canon,"  which  is  de- 
scribed, not  as  inspired  books,  but  as  books  "  which 
by  a  usage  derived  from  our  fathers  are  to  be  read  in 
the  Church." 

6.  That  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  it  was 
received  and  understood  in  Carthage  and  in  that  region 
of  Africa,  did  not  really  differ  from  that  of  the  rest  of 
the  Church,  and  from  that  which  Protestants  now 
accept,  is  plain  from  the  testimony  of  Tertullian  of 
Carthage  in  the  preceding  century,  who,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  recognized  only  24  books  as  belonging  to 
the  Old  Testament,  when  its  canon  is  understood  in  a 
strict  and  proper  sense  as  limited  to  the  books  inspired 
of  God.  It  is  apparent,  likewise,  from  the  testimony 
of  Primasius  and  Junilius,  bishops  in  that  region  of 
Africa  in  the  succeeding  century,  circ.  a.d.  550.  Pri- 
masius, commenting  on  the  Apocalypse  (ch.  iv.),  reckons 
24  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  corresponding  in  num- 
ber to  the  elders  and  the  wings  of  the  living  creatures 
round  about  the  throne.  Junilius  divides  divine  books 
into  three  classes :  "  Some  are  of  perfect  authority, 
some  of  medium  authority,  and  some  of  no  authority." 
His  third  class  answers  to  what  Augustin  calls  the  non- 
canonical  divine  Scriptures,  with  their  "  perilous  fictions 
and  fancies."  The  canonical  books  of  Augustin  and 
the  Council  of  Carthage  are  divided  between  the  other 
two   classes,  showing  that  these   catalogues  were  not 


THE   CANON   OF  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH        175 

understood   to   mean  that  they  were  all  of   the  same 
grade.1 

The  explicit  testimonies  to  the  canon  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  catalogues  of  Christian  councils  and 
Christian  fathers  of  the  first  four  centuries  have  now 
been  examined.  And  it  has  been  found  that,  with  the 
exception  of  three  catalogues  at  the  close  of  the  fourth 
or  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  all  the  remainder, 
with  slight  and  unimportant  variations,  unanimously 
and  unambiguously  sustain  the  Protestant  canon.  And 
the  other  three  emanate  from  one  region,  and  were 
issued  under  one  influence ;  so  that  they  are  virtually 
one  testimony,  and  this  demanding  an  explanation 
which  brings  it,  too,  into  harmony  with  the  united 
testimony  of  the  rest  of  the  catalogues.  There  was  a 
strict  canon,  limited  to  books  inspired  of  God,  which  is 
witnessed  to  from  all  parts  of  the  Church  during  these 
early  ages,  and  is  identical  with  the  canon  of  Jews  and 
with  that  of  Protestants.  But  the  term  canon  was  also 
used  in  a  more  lax  and  wider  sense  by  Augustin  and 
the  councils  in  his  region,  who  embraced  in  it  not  only 
the  inspired  word,  but  in  addition  certain  books  which 
had  gained  a  measure  of  sanctity  in  their  eyes  from 
their  connection  with  the  Greek  and  Latin  Bible,  and 
from  their  having  been  admitted  to  be  read  in  the 
churches  on  account  of  their  devotional  character  and 

1  The  division  which  Junilius  makes  is  somewhat  arbitrary,  and  in- 
dicative of  the  confusion  which  had  arisen  from  indiscriminately  com- 
bining in  these  catalogues  books  of  different  character.  II'  includes 
Ecclesiasticus  among  those  of  perfect  authority,  to  which  some  join 
"Wisdom  and  the  Song  of  Songs.  Those  of  medium  authority  are  two 
books  of  Chronicles,  Job,  Ezra  (including  Nehemiah),  Judith,  Esther, 
and  two  books  of  Maccabees.  That  he,  nevertheless,  intends  to  give 
the  Hebrew  canon  is  apparent  from  the  reason  which  he  assigns  for 
this  partition,  "  Because  they  are  received  among  the  Ilebrews  with 
this  difference,  as  Jerome  and  others  testify. " 


176  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

the  noble  examples  of  martyrdom  which  they  recorded. 
These  supplementary  volumes,  however,  were  not  put 
upon  a  level  with  the  canon  strictly  so-called  in  point 
of  authority.  They  were  to  be  read  and  heard  soberly 
in  the  exercise  of  Christian  discretion,  and  with  this 
caution  they  were  commended  to  Christian  people. 

From  the  fourth  century  onward  the  leading  author- 
ities of  the  Greek  Church,  like  their  predecessors,  in 
their  lists  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  reject  the 
Apocrypha.  Thus  Anastasius,  Patriarch  of  Antioch 
(a.d.  560),  and  Leontius  of  Byzantium  (a.d.  580),  make 
the  number  of  the  sacred  books  22.  And  "  John  of 
Damascus,  the  last  of  the  great  Greek  fathers,  whose 
writings  are  still  regarded  with  the  deepest  reverence 
in  the  Eastern  Church  .  .  .  transcribes  almost  ver- 
bally one  of  the  lists  of  Epiphanius,  which  gives  only  the 
books  of  the  Hebrew  canon  as  of  primary  authority.  To 
these  Ecclesiasticus  and  Wisdom  are  subjoined  as  an 
appendix,  '  being  noble  and  good  books,  though  not 
prophetical.' " 1 

In  the  Western  or  Latin  Church  sentiment  was  di- 
vided, some  following  the  strict  canon  of  Jerome,  others 
the  more  enlarged  canon  of  Augustin.  And  Augustin's 
list,  being  taken  without  note  of  the  cautions  which  he 
connected  with  it,  led  ultimately  to  a  result  which  he 
had  not  intended,  the  effacing  of  the  distinction  between 
inspired  and  uninspired,  and  ranking  all  upon  the  same 
level.  Cassiodorus,  in  his  Institutes  (a.d.  556),  places 
the  lists  of  Jerome  and  Augustin  side  by  side  without 
deciding  between  them  ;  Isidore  of  Seville  (a.d.  636)  does 
the  same.  Among  the  advocates  of  the  strict  canon  is 
one  Bishop  of  Borne,  Gregory  the  Great  (i»J«  604),  who  in 
quoting  a  passage  from  1  Maccabees  says  :  "  We  adduce 
a  testimony  from  books,  though  not  canonical,  yet  pub- 
1  Westcott,  p.  222. 


THE  CANON   OF  THE  CHRISTIAN   CnURCH        177 

lished  for  the  edification  of  the  Church."  And  other 
distinguished  men  in  the  Western  Church,  forming  a 
continuous  chain  of  witnesses  from  the  fourth  century 
down  to  the  very  time  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  Italy, 
Spain,  France,  England,  and  Germany,  have  given  their 
suffrages  in  favor  of  the  Hebrew  canon  and  against  the 
Apocrypha.1  Even  in  the  sixteenth  century,  shortly  be- 
fore the  assembling  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  Cardinal 
Ximenes,  Archbishop  of  Toledo  in  Spain,  in  the  preface 
to  his  Complutensian  Polyglott,  dedicated  to  Pope 
Leo  X.,  and  approved  by  him,  states  that  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  there  printed  in  Greek  only,  viz., 
Tobit,  Judith,  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  Baruch,  and  the 
Maccabees,  with  the  additions  to  Esther  and  Daniel, 
were  not  in  the-  canon,  but  were  received  by  the  Chureh 
rather  for  the  edification  of  the  people  than  for  confirm- 
ing the  authority  of  ecclesiastical  doctiines.  And 
Cardinal  Cajetan  at  Borne  («^«  1534),  a  theologian  of 
great  eminence,  who  it  has  been  thought  would  have 
been  chosen  Pope  if  he  had  outlived  Clement  VII.,  was 
of  the  same  mind.  In  the  preface  to  his  commentary 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  he  says:  "We  have 
chosen  the  rule  of  Jerome  that  we  may  not  err  in  dis- 
tinguishing the  canonical  books;  for  those  which  he 
delivered  as  canonical  we  hold  to  be  canonical,  and 
those  which  he  separated  from  the  canonical  books  we 
hold  to  be  out  of  the  canon."  In  dedicating  his  Com- 
mentary on  the  Historical  Books  of  the  Old  Testament  to 
Clement  VII.  he  writes  :  "  The  whole  Latin  Church  is 
very  greatly  indebted  to  St.  Jerome  for  distinguishing 
the  canonical  from  the  non-canonical  books,  since  he 
has  freed  us  from  the  reproach  of  the  Hebrews  that  we 
frame  for  ourselves  books  or  parts  of  books  of  the  old 
1  These  are  discussed  at  length  in  Cosin's  Scholastieal  History  of  the 
Canon. 

12 


178  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

canon  which  they  lack  entirely.  For  Judith,  Tobit,  and 
the  Maccabees  are  reckoned  by  Jerome  to  be  outside  of 
the  canonical  books  and  placed  among  the  Apocrypha, 
along  with  the  Book  of  Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus. 
These  are  not  canonical  books,  that  is,  they  do  not  be- 
long to  the  rule  for  confirming  those  things  which  are 
of  faith ;  yet  they  can  be  called  canonical,  that  is,  be- 
longing to  the  rule  for  the  edification  of  believers.  With 
this  distinction  what  is  said  by  Augustin  and  written  by 
the  Council  of  Carthage  can  be  rightly  apprehended." 

In  all  this  interval  of  more  than  a  thousand  years 
there  are  few  genuine  catalogues  which  contain  the 
Apocrypha.  Two  catalogues  are  attributed  to  Bishops 
of  Rome,  Innocent  I.  (a.d.  405),  and  Gelasius  (a.d.  492- 
496),  of  which  Westcott  says  (p.  195) :  "  Both  these  lists 
are  open  to  the  gravest  suspicion.  .  .  .  They  were 
unknown  to  Cassiodorus,  who  carefully  collected  the  dif- 
ferent lists  of  Holy  Scripture  current  in  his  time,  and  at 
a  still  later  time  to  Isidore  of  Seville ;  the  text  of  the 
Gelasian  list  varies  considerably  in  different  copies,  and 
in  such  a  way  as  to  indicate  that  the  variations  were 
not  derived  from  one  original.  The  earliest  historical 
traces  of  the  decretals  of  which  they  form  a  part  are 
found  in  the  eighth  century.  The  letter  of  Innocent 
was  sent  to  Charlemagne  in  a.d.  774  by  Hadrian  I.,  in 
the  Code  of  Ecclesiastical  Law,  and  from  that  time  it 
exercised  some  influence  upon  the  judgment  of  the 
Church.  The  list  of  the  canonical  books  in  the  decree 
of  Gelasius  does  not  distinctly  appear  till  about  the 
tenth  century,  and  even  in  later  times  was  compara- 
tively little  known.  .  .  .  Both  lists  simply  repeat 
the  decision  at  Carthage  and  determine  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal canon,  the  books,  that  is,  which  might  be  publicly 
used  in  the  Church  services."  x 

1  See  also  Cosin,  pp.  118-128. 


THE   CANON   OF   THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH        179 

The  council  at  Florence  (a.d.  1439),  which  was  chiefly 
occupied  with  settling  the  disputes  between  thu  Eastern 
and  Western  Churches,  is  also  said  to  have  issued  a 
catalogue  corresponding  with  that  at  Carthage.  But 
the  reality  of  this  is  likewise  disputed.1 

The  Council  of  Trent,  which  Roman  Catholics  regard 
as  an  oecumenical  council,  iind  consequently  authorita- 
tive in  all  its  decrees,  in  its  fourth  session,  April  8, 154G, 
adopted  the  following :  "  The  Synod  doth  receive  and 
venerate  all  the  books  as  well  of  the  Old  as  of  the  New 
Testament,  since  one  God  is  the  author  of  both,  also 
the  unwritten  traditions  pertaining  to  faith  and  morals, 
as  proceeding  from  the  mouth  of  Christ  or  dictated  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  with  an  equal  feeling  of  piety  and  rev- 
erence." The  list  of  the  sacred  books  is  then  given, 
including  Tobit,  Judith,  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  Ba- 
ruch,  and  two  books  of  Maccabees.  The  decree  con- 
clu  les  :  "  If  any  one  does  not  receive  these  books  entire, 
with  all  their  parts,2  as  they  are  accustomed  to  be  read 
in  the  Catholic  Church,  and  knowingly  and  intelligently 
despises  the  traditions  aforesaid,  let  him  be  anathema." 
The  novel  features  of  this  decree  are  :  That  the  apocry- 
phal books  and  unwritten  traditions  are  here  affirmed 
to  be  upon  a  par  with  the  strictly  canonical  books,  and 
that  an  anathema  is  pronounced  upon  those  who  hold  a 
contrary  view.  There  was  a  great  diversity  of  opinion 
in  the  council  as  to  the  best  method  of  dealing  with  the 
subject  of  the  canon.  Some  proposed  simply  to  make  a 
list  of  books  sanctioned  by  the  Church,  as  was  done  at 
Carthage,  without  pronouncing  upon  their  relative 
value ;  others  desired  to  follow  the  example  of  Jerome 
and  make  two  lists,  one  belonging  strictly  to  the  canon 

1  Westcott,  p.  100;  Cosin,  pp.  180-188. 

2  This  is  intended  to  cover  the  apocryphal  portions  of  Esther  and 
Daniel. 


180  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

and  the  other  of  books  commended  as  edifying,  but  not 
to  be  used  in  proof  of  doctrines ;  a  third  class  insisted 
upon  the  course  which  finally  prevailed.  The  decision 
turned  at  last  not  upon  a  thorough  examination  of  the 
question  upon  its  merits,  but  upon  the  existing  usage  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  which  had  selected  its  lessons 
from  the  Apocrypha  as  well  as  from  the  canonical  Script- 
ures, and  upon  a  desire  to  make  an  issue  with  the  Prot- 
estants, who  had  planted  themselves  upon  the  Hebrew 
canon  as  sanctioned  by  the  Lord  and  his  apostles. 

The  formal  and  explicit  testimony  of  the  Church  on 
the  subject  of  the  canon,  as  given  in  its  catalogues  and 
express  statements,  has  now  been  reviewed  from  the 
beginning  to  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  with  its 
evidence  unequivocally  in  favor  of  the  strict  Protestant 
view.  But  alongside  of  this  deliberate  testimony  for- 
mally given  to  the  sharp  distinction  between  the  apoc- 
ryphal and  canonical  books,  there  grew  up  in  popular 
usage  a  sort  of  indiscriminate  treatment  of  them  as  alike 
promotive  of  piety  and  conducive  to  spiritual  edification. 
The  Apocrypha  were  more  or  less  permeated  with  the 
spirit  of  the  Old  Testament,  dealt  with  the  fortunes  of 
the  chosen  people  and  God's  gracious  care  exercised 
over  them,  inculcated  devotion  toward  God  and  stead- 
fast adherence  to  his  service,  as  well  as  integrity  and 
uprightness  in  the  affairs  of  life,  and  were  at  a  vast  re- 
move from  the  pagan  and  polytheistic  literature  which 
abounded  everywhere.  It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that 
they  came  to  be  classed  with  sacred  religious  literature 
as  opposed  to  pagan  and  heretical  productions,  and 
that  in  ordinary  usage  the  distinction  between  them  and 
the  strictly  canonical  books  seems  to  be  sometimes 
obscured ;  though  when  the  question  of  their  relative 
value  is  raised,  this  distinction  is  always  clearly  marked. 
Advantage  has  been  taken  of  this  popular  usage,  and 


THE   CANON   OF  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH        181 

the  attempt  made  to  show  that  it  reflects  a  belief  on 
the  part  of  tho  early  Church  in  the  canonicity  and 
inspiration  of  the  Apocrypha,  which,  it  is  urged,  must 
nullify  or  materially  modify  tho  direct  and  positive  as- 
sertions already  produced  of  a  contrary  belief.  Three 
particulars  are  here  alleged  as  justifying  this  conclusion, 
viz. : 

1.  The  Apocrypha  were  included  in  the  early  versions 
of  the  Scriptures. 

2.  They  were  read  in  the  churches  in  public  worship. 

3.  They  were  quoted  by  the  fathers  as  divinely 
authoritative. 

In  regard  to  the  first  allegation,  that  the  Apocrypha 
were  included  in  the  early  versions  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  must,  therefore,  have  been  regarded  as  a  part  of  the 
word  of  God,  it  is  obvious  to  remark : 

(1.)  The  Apocrypha  were  not  included  in  all  the  early 
versions.  It  was  not  in  the  Syriac  Peshitto.  It  was 
not  Jerome's  original  intention  to  translate  any  of  these 
books  in  his  Latin  version,  though  he  was  subsequently 
persuaded  to  change  his  mind  in  respect  to  Tobit  and 
Judith,  while  not  esteeming  them  canonical.  The  rest 
of  the  Apocrypha  as  found  in  the  Latin  Vulgate  is  taken 
from  an  earlier  version  known  as  the  Itala. 

(2.)  It  has  already  been  shown  that,  though  these 
books  came  to  be  included  in  the  Septuagint  at  some 
date  now  unknown,  they  were  there  only  as  an  append- 
age to  the  inspired  books,  and  not  as  equal  to  them 
in  inspiration  and  authority;  for  the  Alexandrian  .lews, 
amongst  whom  that  version  circulated  and  for  whom  it 
was  prepared,  never  admitted  them  to  the  canon.  Now 
since  the  earlier  translations  were  for  the  most  pari 
made  from  the  Greek  rather  than  the  Hrbn-w,  it  is  nat- 
ural that  all  that  was  in  the  Greek  version  should  be 
translated.     If  they  were  allowed  to  be  connected  with 


182  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

the  Septuagint  without  being  thought  to  be  inspired, 
why  might  they  not  be  retained  in  translations  made 
from  that  version  without  an  assertion  of  their  canon- 
icity  ?  They  were  not  reckoned  a  part  of  the  infallible 
word,  but  they  were  revered  and  valued,  and  possessed 
a  sort  of  sacredness  from  their  resemblance  to  and  their 
association  with  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

(3.)  The  Romish  argument  inverts  the  real  order  of 
the  facts,  and  makes  that  the  cause  which  was  rather  the 
effect.  It  is  not  the  canonicity  of  these  books  which 
led  to  their  insertion  in  the  Septuagint  and  other  ver- 
sions, but  their  incorporation  with  these  versions  which 
led  in  certain  quarters  to  their  admission  to  the  canon, 
when  this  was  understood  in  a  lax  and  improper  sense. 
And  it  may  easily  have  led  in  some  cases  to  their  being 
regarded  with  a  consideration  to  which  they  were  not 
entitled.  The  fathers  reading  Greek  and  Latin,  but 
being  unacquainted  with  Hebrew,  might,  on  finding 
these  books  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  Bible,  and  not 
being  aware  of  their  exclusion  from  the  Hebrew  canon, 
ignorantly  attribute  to  them  an  authority  which  they  do 
not  possess. 

(4.)  The  analogy  of  modern  versions  of  the  Scriptures 
also  shows  that  the  Apocrypha  may  be  included  in  them 
without  being  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  inspired  Word  of 
God.  In  Luther's  translation  of  the  Bible  the  Apocrypha 
are  added  as  an  appendix  to  the  Old  Testament,  with  the 
heading,  "  These  are  books  which  are  not  esteemed 
like  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  yet  are  useful  and  good 
to  read."  The  Apocrypha  were  similarly  inserted  in 
King  James's  translation  of  the  English  Bible,  though 
the  translators  did  not  consider  them  a  part  of  the  canon. 

(5.)  If  this  argument  is  urged,  it  will  prove  more  than 
Romanists  themselves  are  willing  to  admit.  Books 
which  they  reject  as  uncanonical  and  uninspired,  and 


THE  CANON  OF  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH        183 

which  in  fact  no  one  has  ever  dreamed  of  including  in 
the  canon,  are  contained  in  ancient  versions.  The 
Septuagint  contains  3d  Esdras  (E.  V.  1st  Esdras)  and 
3d  Maccabees.  In  the  Vulgate  itself,  which  the  Council 
of  Trent  pronounced  authentic,  are  3d  and  4th  Esdras 
and  the  Prayer  of  Manasseh.  And  the  old  Ethiopic  ver- 
sion contains  the  Book  of  Enoch,  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah, 
the  Book  of  Jubilees,  and  others  which  are  similarly 
destitute  of  authority.1  Why  are  not  these  in  the  canon, 
if  existence  in  an  ancient  version  is  sufficient  to  prove 
that  it  is  entitled  to  a  place  there  ? 

As  to  the  allegation  that  the  Apocrypha  were  read  in 
the  churches  along  with  the  canonical  books  of  Script- 
ure, it  is  to  be  observed : 

(1.)  While  the  fact  is  to  a  certain  extent  admitted,  the 
argument  based  upon  it  is  unsound.  All  depends  upon 
the  meaning  and  intention  with  which  this  was  done. 
This  is  not  to  be  judged  by  modern  ideas  and  practice, 
but  by  the  ideas  and  practice  of  the  early  Church  in 
this  respect. 

(2.)  That  a  clear  distinction  was  made  between  canon- 
ical books  and  books  which  were  read  in  the  churches 
appears  from  the  most  explicit  testimony.  Thus  Jerome 
says : 2  "As  therefore  the  Church  reads  the  books  of 
Judith,  Tobit,  and  Maccabees,  but  does  not  receive  them 
among  the  canonical  Scriptures,  so  it  also  reads  these 
two  volumes  [Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus]  for  the  edifi- 
cation of  the  people,  but  not  for  authority  to  prove  the 

1  Westcott,  p.  238,  mentions  an  Ethiopic  catalogue  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament in  the  British  Museum  which,  in  addition  to  the  canonical  hook9 
and  the  Greek  Apocrypha,  has  "the  apocryphal  story  of  Asenath,  the 
wife  of  Joseph,  the  Book  of  Jubilees,  a  strange  Judaic  commentary  on 
Genesis,  and  an  unknown  apocryphal  writing,  Ozias." 

8  Cosin,  p.  4G.  Thornwell,  Arguments  of  Romanists  Discussed  and 
Refuted,  p.  299. 


184  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

doctrines  of  religion."  Ruffin,  a  contemporary  of  Je- 
rome, says  :  *  "It  should,  however,  be  known  that  there 
are  other  books  which  were  called  by  our  forefathers 
not  canonical,  but  ecclesiastical,  as  the  Wisdom  of  Sol- 
omon and  another  so-called  Wisdom  of  the  Son  of 
Sirach.  ...  Of  the  same  rank  is  the  Book  of  Tobit, 
and  Judith,  and  the  Books  of  the  Maccabees.  .  .  . 
All  which  they  would  have  read  in  the  Church,  but  not 
adduced  for  confirming  the  authority  of  the  faith.  Other 
writings  they  named  apocryphal,2  which  they  would  not 
have  read  in  the  Church.  These  things,  as  I  have  said, 
have  been  delivered  to  us  from  the  fathers."  To  the 
same  purport  is  the  language  of  Athanasius  : 3  "  All  the 
Scripture  of  us  Christians  is  divinely  inspired.  It  con- 
tains books  that  are  not  indefinite,  but  comprised  in  a 
fixed  canon."  Then,  after  enumerating  the  books  in  de- 
tail, he  proceeds  :  "  But  besides  these  books  there  are 
also  some  others  of  the  Old  Testament  not  indeed  re- 
ceived into  the  canon,  but  which  are  only  read  before 
the  catechumens.  These  are  Wisdom,  Sirach  or  Eccle- 
siasticus,  Esther,  Judith,  and  Tobit.  These  are  not 
canonical."  Augustin  is  quoted  by  Cosin,  p.  106,  as 
saying  that  the  Book  of  Wisdom  was  deemed  fit  to  read 
from  the  reader's  desk,  but  not  from  that  of  the  bishops 
or  the  pulpit.  These  explicit  testimonies,  and  others  of 
like  tenor  which  might  be  adduced  if  necessary,  make  it 
certain  that  there  were  books  approved  as  suitable  to 
be  read  in  the  churches  which  yet  were  not  regarded 
as  canonical. 


1  In  Symbol.  Apostol.,  36.     Cosin,  p.  88.     Thornwell,  ubi  supra. 

2  Ruffin  uses  "  apocryphal  "  in  the  sense  of  heretical  and  pernicious, 
as  opposed  not  merely  to  canonical,  but  also  to  ecclesiastical,  which 
latter  corresponds  to  "apocryphal"  as  commonly  used  in  the  discus- 
sion of  the  canon. 

3  Synopsis  Sac.  Script.     Cosin,  pp.  48,  49.     Thornwell,  p.  321. 


THE   CANON   OF  THE   CHPwISTIAN   CHURCH        185 

(3.)  The  present  practice  of  the  Church  of  England 
in  this  matter  sufficiently  shows  that  to  direct  to  be 
read  in  the  churches  and  to  esteem  canonical  are  not 
necessarily  convertible  expressions.  The  Apocrypha 
are  enjoined  to  be  read  in  public  worship  "  for  example 
of  life  and  instruction  of  manners,"  but  at  the  same 
time  expressly  declared  not  to  be  a  part  of  the  canon. 
Lessons  are  accordingly  selected  from  these  as  well  as 
from  the  canonical  books  ;  only  they  are  read  upon 
other  days  than  the  Sabbath. 

(4.)  This  argument,  also,  if  valid,  will  prove  too 
much,  for  books  such  as  Esdras  and  Hernias  were  ad- 
mitted to  be  read  in  ancient  churches  which  Eome  does 
not  account  canonical. 

It  is  alleged  still  further  that  the  apocryphal  books 
are  quoted  and  referred  to  by  the  early  fathers  in  a 
manner  which  shows  that  they  were  esteemed  canon- 
ical. This  is  the  most  plausible  ground  that  can  be 
urged,  for  these  books  are  cited  loosely  in  a  way  which, 
if  we  had  not  convincing  evidence  to  the  contrary, 
might  lead  us  to  suppose  that  they  were  esteemed  to  be 
a  part  of  the  inspired  Word  of  God.  It  must  first  be 
ascertained  whether  what  is  alleged  as  a  quotation 
from  the  Apocrypha  is  really  such,  for  many  pretended 
citations  turn  out  upon  examination  to  be  no  citations 
at  all,  but  have  only  that  remote  resemblance  which 
might  attach  to  the  expressions  of  different  writers  in- 
dependently conceived.  And,  if  it  be  a  real  quotation, 
it  must  be  ascertained  whether  it  is  cited  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  show  that  the  writer  esteemed  it  to  be  the 
inspired  Word  of  God ;  otherwise  he  may  have  quoted  it 
as  he  would  quote  any  human  production. 

In  regard  to  the  writings  of  the  Christians  of  the  first 
century,  or,  as  they  are  commonly  called,  the  Apostoli- 
cal Fathers,  Westcott  sums  up  the  case  thus  :  "  Clement 


186  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

uses  the  narrative  of  Judith  in  exactly  the  same  man- 
ner as  that  of  Esther;  and  Barnabas,  as  might  have 
been  expected  from  an  Alexandrian  writer,  appears  to 
have  been  familiar  with  Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus, 
and  he  quotes  the  second  Book  of  Esdras  (4th  Esdras) 
as  the  work  of  a  prophet.  The  reference  of  Clement  to 
Wisdom  and  of  Polycarp  to  Tobit  are  very  doubtful." 
These  fathers  may  have  been  acquainted  with  some 
books  of  the  Apocrypha,  and  have  believed  that  Judith 
was  a  true  history  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  they  put 
them  on  a  par  with  the  inspired  writings.  If  Barnabas 
thought  that  2d  Esdras,  a  book  which  is  not  in  the 
Koman  Catholic  canon,  was  written  by  Ezra,  he  was 
mistaken. 

By  the  fathers  from  the  second  century  onward  the 
Apocrypha  are  freely  quoted,  but  so  are  the  books  of 
uninspired  and  heathen  writers,  as  Homer,  Yirgil, 
Cicero,  etc.  A  bare  citation  shows  nothing  more  than 
that  the  book  was  known  and  contained  something  per- 
tinent to  the  subject  in  hand.  It  gives  no  information 
respecting  the  authority  accorded  to  it  and  the  esteem 
in  which  it  was  held. 

Another'  large  class  of  citations  is  quite  as  little  to 
our  present  purpose,  viz.,  those  in  which  these  books 
are  spoken  of  with  respect,  the  sentiments  which  they 
contain  are  quoted  with  approbation  or  their  histories 
appealed  to  as  true.  There  is  a  very  wide  difference 
between  holding  that  a  book  contains  much  that  is  ex- 
cellent and  worthy  of  regard,  or  that  it  records  historical 
facts,  and  accepting  it  as  the  inspired  Word  of  God. 
Unless  there  is  something  in  the  mode  of  citation 
which  implies  the  inspiration  or  divine  authority  of  the 
volume  quoted,  it  proves  nothing  to  the  purpose.  It 
is  urged,  however,  that  this  is  repeatedly  done  by  the 
fathers. 


THE   CANON    OF   THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH        187 

1.  They  make  use  of  the  same  formulas  in  quoting 
from  the  Apocrypha  that  they  do  in  quoting  from  the 
canonical  books,  and  they  frequently  apply  to  the 
former  names  and  epithets  which  are  appropriate  to 
the  latter. 

2.  They  speak  of  the  writers  of  these  books  in  the 
same  terms  which  they  employ  in  relation  to  the  in- 
spired writers. 

Citations  from  the  Apocrypha  are  introduced  by  the 
words,  "  It  is  written,"  which  is  the  common  formula  in 
the  New  Testament  in  quoting  from  the  Old,  and  which 
became  the  established  phrase  in  citing  from  the  in- 
spired writings.  And  such  titles  as  Scripture,  sacred 
Scripture,  holy  Scripture,  divine  Scripture,  are  repeat- 
edly applied  to  the  Apocrypha  as  to  the  canonical  writ- 
ings.    But  in  regard  to  this  it  should  bo  remembered — 

(1.)  Although  the  word  Scripture  from  long  and  famil- 
iar usage  suggests  at  once  to  our  minds  the  inspired  vol- 
ume, it  is  in  its  original  import  a  general  term,  ypacpTj, 
scriptura,  denoting  writing,  and  applicable  to  any  com- 
position whatever.  And  in  this  sense  it  was  very  gen- 
erally employed ;  thus  Eusebius  speaks  of  the  Scripture 
of  Josephus  and  the  Scripture  of  Aristeas.  So,  too, 
the  expression  sacred  or  divine  Scripture,  need  mean 
no  more  than  a  writing  upon  sacred  or  divine  subjects 
— in  other  words,  a  religious  book.  And  the  fathers, 
in  giving  such  titles  to  these  books,  may  have  meant  no 
more  than  to  designate  them  as  belonging  to  the  cate- 
gory of  sacred  in  contrast  with  profane  literature,  or 
books  upon  secular  subjects.  And  there  was  the  more 
reason  for  using  these  titles  in  application  to  books 
which  were  associated  with  the  sacred  volume  in  the 
versions  in  most  common  use,  and  which  had  a  sort  of 
ecclesiastical  sanction  in  their  being  allowed  to  be  read 
in  conjunction  with  the  inspired  books  in  public  wor- 


188  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

ship.  It  was  to  be  expected  that  they  would,  in  con- 
sequence, be  regarded  with  a  respect  and  veneration 
which  was  not  felt  for  other  human  productions.  And 
if  even  the  term  "  canonical "  could  be  applied  to  them 
in  a  loose  and  improper  sense,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
it  is  not  surprising  if  a  like  extension  was  given  to 
other  terms  descriptive  of  the  sacred  books. 

(2.)  That  these  terms  are  applied  to  the  Apocrypha 
in  the  general  sense  suggested  by  their  etymology,  or 
else  in  the  loose  and  improper  sense  just  spoken  of,  is 
convincingly  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  same  writers 
who  in  their  works  distinctly  exclude  these  books  from 
the  canon,  yet  cite  them  under  these  very  titles.  Ter- 
tullian  acknowledges  but  24  books  of  Scripture — in 
other  words,  the  Hebrew  canon — and  yet  he  quotes 
from  Baruch,  Wisdom,  and  Ecclesiasticus.  Origen,  in 
his  catalogue  of  the  canon,  leaves  out  the  Apocrypha, 
yet  he  quotes  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiasticus, 
Tobit,  Judith,  and  Maccabees  under  the  name  of  Script- 
ure or  the  divine  word.  The  canon  of  Jerome,  in  all 
three  of  his  catalogues,  is  identical  with  that  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible ;  yet  he  quotes  Maccabees  as  Scripture, 
and  in  one  place  Ecclesiasticus  as  Holy  Scripture. 
Chrysostom  received  only  the  Hebrew  canon,  yet  he 
quotes  Baruch,  Ecclesiasticus,  and  Wisdom  as  divine 
Scripture.  Athanasius  adheres  to  the  Hebrew  canon 
in  his  catalogue,  and  yet  cites  the  Book  of  Wisdom  as 
Scripture,  and  Ecclesiasticus  in  one  place  as  Holy 
Scripture  and  in  another  with  the  formula,  "As  the 
rloly  Ghost  saith."  These  loose,  popular  citations, 
made  perhaps  in  some  instances  without  distinctly 
remembering  in  what  books  they  were  to  be  found, 
should  not  be  held  to  prove  a  belief  in  the  inspiration 
of  books  which  in  their  formal  statements  they  ex- 
pressly disavow  and  repudiate.     It  is  much  more  rea- 


THE   CANON   OF  TIIE  CHRISTIAN   CI1UKCH        180 

sonable  to  receive  their  formal  statements  on  this  sub- 
ject as  explanatory  of  the  sense  in  which  they  designed 
their  less  explicit  expressions  to  be  understood. 

(3.)  The  wide  sense  in  which  sueh  terms  as  divine 
books  were  popularly  used  is  apparent  from  expressions 
already  quoted  from  Augustin,  who  includes  among 
divine  books  those  which  contain  "perilous  fictions 
and  fancies;"  and  from  Junilius,  who  speaks  of  some 
divine  books  as  having  no  authority  at  all.  Cyprian 
quotes  a  passage  from  the  Apocrypha  as  Scripture,  and 
then  proceeds  to  prove  the  correctness  of  its  statement 
by  what  he  calls  "  the  testimony  of  truth,"  adducing 
for  that  purpose  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  It  is  plain 
that  these  are  not  put  by  him  upon  the  same  level. 

(4.)  An  analogy  in  modern  times  may  be  found  in 
the  fact  that  the  Homilies  of  the  Church  of  England 
cite  the  Book  of  Wisdom  as  Scripture  and  as  the  Word 
of  God ;  and  yet  this  book  forms  no  part  of  the  canon 
of  that  Church. 

(5.)  Books  are  cited  under  these  names  which  none 
esteem  and  none  ever  have  esteemed  canonical.  These 
same  epithets  are  found  applied  to  the  so-called  Apos- 
tolical Constitutions,  the  writings  of  Ignatius  and  of 
Augustin,  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  the  Sybil- 
line  verses,  etc. 

The  remaining  class  of  citations  which  is  urged  as 
decisive  of  the  point  at  issue  comprises  those  in  which 
the  writers  of  these  books  are  called  by  some  title  ap- 
propriate to  inspired  men,  such  as  "prophet,"  or  in 
which  the  authorship  of  these  books  is  ascribed  to 
some  writer  of  known  inspiration.  Thus  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon  is  frequently  quoted  with  the  formula, 
"  Solomon  says,"  or  "  The  prophet  says."  And  menl  ion 
is  made  of  "  five  books  of  Solomon."     But — 

(1.)  These  expressions  are  employed  in  a  loose  and 


1J0  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

popular  sense.  This  is  distinctly  declared  by  Augustin, 
who  says :  "  Solomon  prophesied  in  his  books,  three 
of  which  are  received  into  canonical  authority — Prov- 
erbs, Ecclesiastes,  and  the  Song  of  Songs.  But  two 
others,  one  of  which  is  called  Wisdom  and  the  other 
Ecclesiasticus,  have  come  to  be  commonly  called  Sol- 
omon's on  account  of  some  similarity  of  style.  Yet 
the  more  learned  do  not  doubt  that  they  are  not  his." 
So  when  the  apocryphal  additions  to  the  Book  of 
Daniel  are  cited  under  the  name  of  Daniel,  this  is 
merely  giving  to  a  book  the  name  popularly  attrib- 
uted to  it.  And  when  the  Book  of  Baruch  is  cited 
under  the  name  of  Jeremiah,  this  is  because  Baruch 
was  regarded  as  a  sort  of  appendix  to  the  canonical 
book. 

(2.)  If,  however,  the  letter  of  these  expressions  is 
pressed,  the  only  consequence  will  be  not  to  establish 
the  canonicity  of  these  books,  but  to  prove  that  the 
fathers  were  mistaken  ;  for  it  is  capable  of  satisfactory 
demonstration  that  Solomon  was  not  the  author  of 
"Wisdom,  nor  Daniel  of  the  apocryphal  chapters  that 
are  found  only  in  the  Greek,  and  Ecclesiasticus  ex- 
pressly claims  to  have  been  written  by  another  than 
Solomon,  and  Baruch  by  another  than  Jeremiah. 

(3.)  That  the  more  intelligent  of  the  fathers  did  not 
seriously  mean  by  these  loose  citations  to  sanction 
these  books  as  the  work  of  inspired  men  appears  from 
their  elsewhere  declaring  in  a  more  formal  way  pre- 
cisely the  reverse.  Those  who  were  not  well  informed 
may,  under  the  circumstances,  easily  have  been  be- 
trayed into  error  in  this  matter. 

(A.)  Baruch  is  called  a  prophet  in  the  Homilies  of 
the  Church  of  England,  although  that  Church  does  not 
accept  Baruch  as  canonical. 

(5.)  Books  are  quoted  similarly  which  are  not  in  the 


THE   CANON   OF  THE   CHRISTIAN   CIIURCII        101 

canon  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  e.g.,  3d  and  4th  Esdras, 
under  the  name  of  the  Prophet  Esdras  or  Ezra. 

The  history  of  the  canon  in  the  Christian  Church 
since  the  Council  of  Trent  can  be  briefly  Btated.  As 
Bornan  Catholics  acknowledge  the  authority  of  that 
council,  the  canonicity  of  the  Apocrypha  has  ever  since 
been  an  established  dogma  in  that  communion.  It  was 
not  to  be  expected,  therefore,  that  the  line  of  win  • 
against  their  inspiration,  which  reached  down  to  the 
very  assembling  of  this  council,  would  bo  continued 
further  in  that  Church.  Yet  a  few  learned  Romanists, 
such  as  Dupin,  Jahn,  and  Bernard  Lamy,  sought  to  rec- 
oncile the  terms  of  its  decree  with  the  sentiments  of  the 
primitive  Church,  and,  while  in  form  assenting  to  the 
former,  still  to  maintain  their  accordance  with  the  latter 
by  making  a  distinction  between  the  proto-canonical 
and  the  deutero-canonical,  books.  The  Hebrew  canon 
wTas  called  proto-canonical,  or  the  first  canon,  and  was  re- 
garded as  in  the  fullest  sense  inspired  and  authoritative. 
The  second  canon  consisted  of  the  books  added  by  the 
Council  of  Trent,  which  were  held  to  be  inferior  in 
authority  to  the  first,  possessing  a  sacredness  and 
entitled  to  veneration  from  the  esteem  with  which  they 
were  anciently  regarded  and  the  measure  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal sanction  which  they  enjoyed,  being  read  for  edifica- 
tion in  public  worship,  but  not  alleged  in  proof  of  doc- 
trines. This,  however,  does  not  accord  with  the 
language  of  the  decree,  which  puts  these  books  on  a 
par  with  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament.  Accordingly, 
the  doctrine  now  universally  accepted  in  the  Church  of 
Rome  assigns  equal  authority  to  the  Apocrypha  with 
the  other  books  of  the  canon. 

In  the  Greek  Church  the  Confession  of  Faith  1>; 
Cyril  Lucar,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  issued  in  1631, 
sanctions  the  Hebrew  canon.    With  this  agree  the  Con- 


192  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

fession  of  his  friend  Metrophanes  Critopulus,  the 
Orthodox  Teaching  of  Platon,  Metropolitan  of  Moscow, 
A.D.  1836,  and  the  authorized  Russian  Catechism.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Confession  of  Dositheus,  Patriarch 
of  Jerusalem,  prepared  under  Romish  influence  in  1672, 
and  in  opposition  to  the  views  of  Lucar,  sanctioned  the 
Apocrypha. 

The  Protestant  churches  have  from  the  first  been 
unanimous  in  adhering  to  the  Hebrew  canon,  which  is 
the  canon  of  Christ  and  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  the  canon  of  the  early  Church.  There  has, 
however,  been  some  diversity  among  them  in  regard  to 
the  esteem  in  which  they  were  disposed  to  hold  the 
Apocrypha.  This  may  be  represented  by  the  articles 
of  the  Church  of  England  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
Westminster  Confession  on  the  other.  The  former 
repeat  with  approval  the  language  of  Jerome:  "The 
Church  doth  read  "  the  Apocrypha  "  for  example  of  life 
and  instruction  of  manners ;  but  yet  doth  it  not  apply 
them  to  establish  any  doctrine."  The  Westminster 
Confession,  ch.  i.,  §  3,  says :  "  The  books  commonly 
called  Apocrypha,  not  being  of  divine  inspiration,  are 
no  part  of  the  canon  of  Scripture ;  and  therefore  are  of 
no  authority  in  the  Church  of  God,  nor  to  be  otherwise 
approved  or  made  use  of  than  other  human  writings." 
The  former  of  these  views  naturally  led  to  their  reten- 
tion in  the  volume  of  the  Old  Testament,  if  not  mingled 
indiscriminately  with  the  canonical  books,  as  in  the 
Vulgate  and  Romish  Bibles  generally,  yet  separated 
from  them  and  brought  together  in  a  sort  of  appendix 
at  the  end.  The  view  of  the  Westminster  Confession 
would  logically  banish  them  from  the  volume  of  Holy 
Scripture  altogether,  and  treat  them  precisely  as  all 
other  uninspired  productions. 

The  antagonism  of  these  two  sets  of  opinions  culmi- 


THE   CANON   OF  THE  CHRISTIAN   CHURCH        193 

nated  in  the  famous  apocryphal  controversy  which  for 
several  years  agitated  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society.  In  circulating  the  Bible  in  Germany,  the 
Society  at  first  purchased  and  made  use  of  the  Canstein 
Bible,  which  contained  Luther's  version  of  the  Apocry- 
pha as  well  as  the  canonical  books.  This  fact  being 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Society  in  1811,  it  was 
resolved  that  its  auxiliaries  upon  the  Continent  should 
be  requested  to  leave  out  the  Apocrypha.  The  oppo- 
sition which  this  met  with  led  to  the  rescinding  of  this 
order  in  1813.  The  strife  thus  begun  became  more  ar- 
dent in  1819,  when  the  Society  undertook  the  printing 
of  Catholic  Bibles  in  Italian,  Spanish,  and  Portuguese. 
The  apocryphal  books  were  in  these  not  merely  printed 
as  such  at  the  end  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  were  min- 
gled indiscriminately  with  the  other  books,  as  though 
they  were  equally  part  of  the  canon.  Still,  it  was  con- 
tended that  the  Society  would  forego  all  opportunity  of 
distributing  the  Scriptures  in  the  Catholic  countries  of 
Europe  if  it  did  not  retain  the  Apocrypha.  In  1822 
the  compromise  was  proposed  and  carried  that  the 
money  of  the  Society  should  only  be  used  for  printing 
the  canonical  Scriptures,  and  that  such  auxiliaries  as 
chose  to  publish  the  Apocrypha  should  do  so  at  their 
own  expense.  In  September,  1824,  Leander  Van  Ess, 
publisher  of  the  Vulgate,  asked  the  aid  of  the  Society 
in  issuing  an  edition  of  the  Latin  Bible,  promising  that 
he  would  bear  the  whole  cost  of  the  Apocrypha.  The 
sum  of  £500  was  voted  for  this  purpose.  But  in  the 
following  December  the  resolution  was  reconsidered 
and  the  grant  withdrawn,  and  the  Society  resolved  that 
in  future  it  would  only  aid  in  printing  those  Bibles  in 
which  the  Apocrypha  was  kept  distinct  from  the  canon- 
ical books.  Still,  these  half-way  measures  could  not 
satisfy  those  whose  consciences  were  offended  by  the 
13 


194  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

intrusion  of  human  and  uninspired  productions  in  the 
volume  of  God's  Word.  The  agitation  was  accordingly 
continued,  until  finally,  on  May  3,  1827,  it  was  resolved 
"  that  no  association  or  individual  circulating  the  apoc- 
ryphal books  should  receive  aid  from  the  Society ;  that 
none  but  bound  books  should  be  distributed  to  the  aux- 
iliaries, and  that  the  auxiliaries  should  circulate  them  as 
received ;  and  that  all  societies  printing  the  apocryphal 
books  should  place  the  amount  granted  them  for  Bibles 
at  the  disposal  of  the  parent  Society."  1 

1  Abridged  from  the  article  entitled  "  Bible  Societies,"  in  Appleton'a 
Cyclopaedia,  which  was  chiefly  based  upon  the  account  given  in  Hertr 
zog. 


XT 

THE    APOCRYPHA    CONDEMNED    BY    INTERNAL 
EVIDENCE 

The  limits  of  the  canon  must  be  determined  mainly 
by  external  evidence ;  for  it  is  a  historical  question : 
What  books  were  committed  to  the  Church  and  received 
by  her  as  her  rule  of  faith  and  life  ?  To  undertake  to 
settle  the  canon  by  internal  evidence  exclusively  would 
end  in  making  it  insecure,  and  subjecting  it  to  capri- 
cious and  arbitrary  treatment.  Historical  questions  can 
only  be  determined  by  historical  evidence. 

But  while  this  is  so,  a  negative  value  attaches  to  in- 
ternal evidence,  which  may  be  of  such  a  nature  as  to  be 
quite  decisive.  A  book  which  contains  what  is  false  in 
fact  or  erroneous  in  doctrine,  or  which  is  unworthy  of 
God,  cannot  have  been  inspired  by  him.  If  these  books 
be  tried  by  this  evident  test,  they  will  be  found  wanting.1 

The  books  of  Tobit  and  Judith  abound  in  geograph- 
ical, chronological,  and  historical  mistakes,  so  as  not 
only  to  vitiate  the  truth  of  the  narratives  which  they 
contain,  but  to  make  it  doubtful  whether  they  even  rest 
upon  a  basis  of  fact.  They  tend  to  promote  supersti- 
tion ;  they  justify  deception  and  falsehood ;  they  make 
salvation  and  the  pardon  of  sin  to  depend  upon  meri- 
torious deeds,  which  may  be  purely  formal  and  external. 

It  is  said  to  have  been  in  the  youth  of  Tobit  that  the 
ten  tribes  revolted  from  Judah  under  Jeroboam,  Tobit 
i.  4,  5 ;  this  would  make  him  two  hundred  and  seventy 
years  old  at  the  time  of  the  Assyrian   captivity.     But 

1  Keerl  die  Apokryphen,  from  which  the  following  is  largely  drawn 

195 


196  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

according  to  xiv.  11  lie  was  only  one  hundred  and  fifty- 
eight  years  old  when  he  died,  and  according  to  the  Latin 
text  only  one  hundred  and  two.  Contrary  to  all  analogy 
of  angels'  visits,  which  are  always  brief  as  recorded  in 
Scripture,  an  angel  is  made  to  journey  on  foot  with  To- 
bias three  hundred  miles.  He  also  tells  a  falsehood 
about  himself,  professing  (v.  12)  to  be  one  Azarias,  a  son 
of  one  of  Tobit's  acquaintances,  and  (vii.  3)  one  of  the 
captives  of  the  tribe  of  Naphtali.  He  afterward  makes 
himself  known  as  the  angel  Raphael  (xii.  15),  and  teaches 
a  doctrine  which  has  no  support  elsewhere  in  Script- 
ure, and  which  conflicts  with  the  mediatorial  office  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  there  are  seven  holy  angels 
which  present  the  prayers  of  the  saints  and  which  go  in 
and  out  before  the  glory  of  the  Holy  One  (comp.  ver. 
12).  This  notion  is  in  all  likelihood  borrowed  from  the 
seven  Amshaspands  of  the  Persian  superstition.  An 
evil  spirit  is  fantastically  represented  as  in  love  with  a 
woman,  and  so  jealous  as  to  murder  whoever  marries 
her  (vi.  14) ;  but  the  smoking  heart  and  liver  of  a  fish 
have  such  magical  virtue  as  to  drive  this  demon  away 
(vi.  7,  17).  Ch.  xii.  9  ascribes  to  almsgiving  such  virtue 
as  to  deliver  from  death  and  to  purge  away  all  sin ;  so 
also  iv.  10,  xiv.  10,  11. 

Bethulia,  the  scene  of  the  Book  of  Judith  vi.  10,  11, 
is  a  place  of  whose  existence  there  is  no  other  evidence ; 
its  significant  name,  meaning  virgin,  suggests  that  the 
whole  story  may  be  an  allegory  or  romance.  And  no 
time  can  be  found  in  Jewish  history  for  the  events 
which  it  records,  or  the  protracted  peace  which  is  said 
to  have  followed.  The  march  imputed  to  Holof ernes 
is  a  most  extraordinary  zigzag.  Nebuchadnezzar  is 
said  to  have  reigned  in  Nineveh  (i.  1),  whereas  Babylon 
was  his  capital ;  and  Joiakim  is  said  to  have  been  the 
contemporary  high  priest  (iv.  6,  xv.  8),  whereas  there 


THE  APOCRYPHA   SELF-CONDEMNED  197 

was  no  high  priest  of  this  name  until  after  the  exile,  and 
then  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Nineveh  and  the  kingdom  of 

the  Modes  (i.  1)  had  all  passed  away.  Judith's  language 
and  conduct  is  a  continued  course  of  falsehood  and 
deception,  and  yet  it  is  represented  as  approved  of  God, 
and  she  is  divinely  assisted  in  it.  She  even  prays  to 
God  to  aid  her  in  her  deception  (ix.  10, 13).  The  crime 
of  Simeon,  which  is  condemned  in  Gen.  xlix.  5  ff.,  is  ap- 
plauded (ix.  2).  And  with  all  these  offences  against  the 
moral  law,  a  breach  of  the  ceremonial,  even  for  the  sake 
of  preserving  human  life,  is  represented  as  a  deadly  sin 
(xi.  10  ff.). 

The  Wisdom  of  Solomon  and  the  Book  of  Ecclesias- 
ticus  contain  many  excellent  maxims,  and  yet  the  moral- 
ity wrhich  they  inculcate  is  defective  and  is  based  mainly 
on  expediency,  without  a  due  regard  to  the  holiness  of 
God  or  the  requirements  of  his  law.  The  wisdom  which 
they  contain  is  not  that  of  Solomon,  but  of  the  Alexan- 
drian philosophy.  The  doctrine  of  emanation  seems  to 
be  taught  (Wisd.  vii.  25) ;  and  the  pre-existence  of  souls, 
whose  mortal  destiny  is  determined  by  their  character 
prior  to  their  birth  into  this  world  (viii.  19,  20) ;  and  the 
creation  of  the  world,  not  from  nothing,  but  out  of  pre- 
existent  matter  (xi.  17).  The  material  body  is  spoken  of 
as  a  weight  and  clog  upon  the  soul  (ix.  15),  a  doctrine 
wrhich  has  no  countenance  in  Scripture.  Israel  is  repre- 
sented as  a  righteous  person,  and  all  God's  favors  in 
their  past  history  as  a  reward  of  their  goodness  (x.  15- 
20),  whereas  in  the  Scriptures  these  are  always  spoken  of 
as  undeserved  mercies,  bestowed  in  spite  of  their  unfaith- 
fulness. The  miracles  are  exaggerated  in  a  way  that 
has  no  sanction  in  the  inspired  narrative  of  them,  from 
a  mere  love  of  the  marvellous.  Thus  the  manna  is  said 
(xvi.  20,  21)  to  have  agreed  to  every  taste,  and  to  have 
tempered  itself  to  every  man's  liking ;  and  the  plagues 


198  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

of  Egypt  are  related  (cli.  xvi.,  xvii.)  with  a  number  of 
embellishments  existing  only  in  the  imagination  of  the 
writer.  A  false  explanation  is  given  of  the  symbolical 
meaning  of  the  high  priest's  dress  (xviii.  24,  25),  and  a 
virtue  attributed  to  it  which  was  due  only  to  his  office 
and  his  official  mediation.  Cain's  murder  of  Abel  is 
said  to  have  been  the  cause  of  the  flood  (x.  4),  and  a  very 
superficial  account  is  given  of  the  origin  of  idolatry, 
which  is  traced  (xiv.  15)  to  fathers  making  images  of 
their  deceased  children,  entirely  overlooking  the  great 
moral  causes  which  the  apostle  points  out  in  Kom.  i. 
21-23 — the  alienation  of  the  heart  from  God  so  dark- 
ening the  understanding  that  men  changed  the  glory 
of  the  uncorruptible  God  into  an  image  made  like  to 
corruptible  man  and  to  birds  and  four-footed  beasts 
and  creeping  things.  The  Book  of  Wisdom,  more- 
over, claims  to  have  been  written  by  Solomon  (ch.  vii., 
ix.  7,  8),  and  yet  the  people  of  God  are  spoken  of  as 
in  subjection  to  their  enemies  (xv.  14),  which  never 
occurred  in  Solomon's  days;  and  the  book  was,  as 
is  evident,  originally  written  not  in  Hebrew,  but  in 
Greek. 

Ecclesiasticus,  with  much  that  is  commendable,  con- 
tains also  quite  a  number  of  passages  that  are  at  variance 
with  the  spirit  and  teachings  of  the  inspired  word.  Thus 
it  says  that  almsgiving  makes  atonement  for  sin  (iii.  30). 
Generosity  to  the  wicked  is  prohibited  (xii.  4-7),  cruelty 
to  slaves  is  justified  (xxxiii.  26,  28,  xlii.  5),  and  hatred 
to  the  Samaritans  (I.  25,  26).  Expediency  is  substituted 
for  right  as  the  ground  of  obligation,  and  exhortations 
given  to  do  what  will  gain  the  favor  of  men  in  place  of 
a  single  regard  to  what  is  acceptable  in  the  sight  of 
God.  Thus,  xxxviii.  17,  "  Weep  bitterly  for  the  dead  for 
a  day  or  two,  lest  thou  be  evil  spoken  of." 

Baruch  purports  to   have   been  written    by  Baruch, 


THE   APOCRYPHA    SELF-CONDEMNED  199 

the  helper  of  Jeremiah,  though  it  was  probably  written 
in  the  Greek  language  in  whole  or  in  part.  It  contains 
passages  imitated  or  quoted  from  Daniel  and  Nehe- 
miah,  who  lived  later.  According  to  i.  14  this  book 
was  required  to  be  read  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  on 
feasts  and  solemn  days ;  but  there  is  no  trace  of  such  a 
custom  having  ever  been  observed  by  the  Jews.  Baruch 
is  said  to  have  been  in  Babylon,  though  he  went  with 
Jeremiah  into  Egypt  after  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by 
Nebuchadnezzar.  The  Temple  is  spoken  of  as  standing, 
and  offerings  said  to  be  made  in  Jerusalem  (i.  7-10), 
though  the  Temple  was  burned  when  the  city  was  taken. 
The  vessels  of  the  Temple  are  said  to  have  been  sent 
back  from  Babylon  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah  (i.  8),  though 
they  were  not  in  fact  returned  until  after  the  exile  was 
over  (Ezra  i.  7).  God  is  spoken  of  as  hearing  the  pray- 
ers of  the  dead  (iii.  4),  which,  like  2  Mace.  xv.  14, 
where  Jeremiah  prays  for  the  people  after  his  death, 
has  been  used  as  a  proof-text  for  soliciting  the  prayers 
of  departed  saints.  The  epistle  of  Jeremiah,  which  now 
appears  as  the  last  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Baruch,  is 
probably  older  than  this  book  and  by  a  different  author. 
It  conflicts  with  the  genuine  writings  of  Jeremiah  in 
declaring  that  the  captivity  was  to  last  seven  generations, 
instead  of  seventy  years,  ver.  3. 

1  Maccabees  contains  historical  and  geographical  er- 
rors, which  it  is  not  worth  while  to  detail  here,  but  is 
much  more  reliable  than  2  Maccabees,  which  abounds  in 
legends  and  fables,  as  that  of  the  miraculous  preserva- 
tion of  the  sacred  fire  (i.  19  ff),  Jeremiah's  hiding  the 
Tabernacle  with  the  ark  and  altar  of  incense  in  Mount 
Nebo  (ii.  4  ff),  the  apparition  which  prevented  Heli- 
odorus  from  invading  the  sanctity  of  the  Temple  (iii. 
25),  etc.  It  justifies  suicide  (xiv.  41-46),  and  prayers 
and  offerings  for  the  dead  (xii.  41-45).     And  the  writer 


200  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

does  not  claim  inspiration,  but  only  to  have  written  ac 
cording  to  his  ability  (xv.  38,  39). 

The  genuine  Book  of  Esther  is  written  in  Hebrew 
and  found  in  the  Hebrew  canon,  but  the  additions  are 
only  in  the  Greek  and  in  the  old  Latin  version.  Some 
writer  appears,  as  is  remarked  by  Jerome,  to  have  un- 
dertaken to  add  what  might  have  been  said  by  the  vari- 
ous persons  mentioned  in  the  book  under  the  circum- 
stances there  described.  But  in  so  doing  he  interrupts 
the  connection,  contradicts  the  genuine  chapters  in  vari- 
ous particulars,  and  adds  others  which  are  exceedingly 
improbable  or  evidently  untrue. 

The  additions  to  the  Book  of  Daniel  consist  of  three 
parts :  1.  The  prayer  of  the  three  children,  Shadrach, 
Meshach  and  Abednego,  in  the  fiery  furnace,  which  is 
a  devout  meditation,  but  without  any  special  adapta- 
tion to  the  occasion  or  their  situation  ;  and  it  contains 
(vs.  23-27)  some  particulars  not  warranted  by  the  gen- 
uine narrative.  2.  The  story  of  Susannah,  which  con- 
tains a  play  upon  words,  showing  that  it  must  have 
been  written  in  Greek.  3.  The  legend  of  Bel  and  the 
Dragon,  which  is  an  absurd  and  ridiculous  fiction. 


xn 

ORDER  AND  NUMBER  OF  THE  CANONICAL  BOOKS 

Bloch,  p.  137,  infers  from  the  concluding  verses  of 
Ecclesiastes  that  this  book  stood  last  in  the  original 
arrangement  of  the  canon.  Following  a  conjecture  of 
Krochmal  and  Graetz,  he  regards  Eccl.  xii.  12-14  as  no 
part  of  the  book  itself,  but  a  note  appended  to  the 
completed  canon  by  its  collectors,  certifying  that  it 
sufficiently  sets  forth  all  that  man  requires  to  know  in 
regard  to  his  duty  and  his  destiny,  and  warning  against 
the  endless  multitude  of  other  books  as  only  wearisome, 
without  being  able  to  give  a  satisfactory  response  to 
these  great  questions.  As  there  is  no  good  reason  for 
attributing  these  verses  to  the  collectors  of  the  canon, 
or  understanding  them  as  anything  else  than  a  fitting 
conclusion  to  the  book  itself,  the  inference  as  to  its  po- 
sition in  the  canon  falls  of  course. 

An  opinion  much  more  widely  entertained  is  that 
certain  passages  in  the  New  Testament  show  that  in  the 
time  of  our  Lord  the  books  were  arranged  as  they  are 
in  Hebrew  Bibles  at  present.  Thus,  Mat.  xxiii.  35, 
Luke  xi.  51,  in  speaking  of  "all  the  righteous  blood 
shed  upon  the  earth,"  our  Lord  particularizes  "  from 
the  blood  of  righteous  Abel  unto  the  blood  of  Zacha- 
riah,  son  of  Barachiah,  whom  ye  slew  between  the 
sanctuary  and  the  altar"  (cf.  2  Chron.  xxiv.  20,  21). 
From  this  it  has  been  inferred  that  Chronicles  must 
have  been  then,  as  now,  the  last  book  in  the  Hebrew 
canon,  since  one  example  is  taken  from  Genesis  and  the 

201 


202  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

other  from  Chronicles,  to  represent  all  that  are  record- 
ed in  the  Bible  from  first  to  last.  And  this,  though 
the  murder  of  a  prophet  later  in  point  of  time  might 
have  been  found  in  that  of  Uriah,  the  contemporary  of 
Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxvi.  23).  Plausible  as  this  argument 
seems,  it  can  scarcely  be  called  convincing,  for  two 
reasons  :  1.  From  Genesis  to  Chronicles,  considered  as 
the  earliest  and  the  latest  of  the  historical  books,  would 
be  equally  comprehensive,  irrespective  of  the  position 
of  the  latter  in  the  arrangement  of  the  canon.  And  2. 
It  is  perhaps  not  absolutely  certain  that  Zachariah,  the 
son  of  Barachiah,  of  Matthew,  is  the  same  as  Zachariah, 
the  son  of  Jehoiada,  in  Chronicles. 

Our  Lord's  words  (Luke  xxiv.  44)  "  All  things  must 
needs  be  fulfilled  which  were  written  in  the  law  of  Mo- 
ses, and  the  prophets,  and  the  psalms  concerning  me," 
have  been  thought  to  indicate  that  the  Psalms  then, 
as  now,  was  the  first  book  in  the  third  division  of  the 
canon,  and  as  such  is  here  used  to  denote  all  that  is 
included  in  that  division.  But  the  Psalms  in  this  pass- 
age mean  simply  the  particular  book  so  called,  which  is 
singled  out  from  the  rest  of  the  Hagiographa  as  making 
the  fullest  disclosures  respecting  Christ ;  so  that  nothing 
can  be  inferred  from  it  respecting  the  arrangement  of 
the  books  in  that  division  of  the  canon. 

The  books  of  Moses  and  the  Former  Prophets,  or  the 
historical  books  from  Joshua  to  Kings,  preserve  one  un- 
varying order  in  all  the  early  lists  of  the  canon,  which  is 
determined  by  their  chronological  succession.  The  Lat- 
ter Prophets,  or  the  strictly  prophetical  books  and  the 
Hagiographa,  are  variously  arranged.  The  order  of  the 
Latter  Prophets  in  the  Talmudic  tract  Baba  Bathra  is 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Isaiah,  the  Twelve ;  and  that  of  the 
Hagiographa,  Buth,  Psalms,  Job,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
Song  of  Songs,  Lamentations,  Esther,  Ezra,  Chronicles. 


ORDER   AND    NUMBER  OF   CANONICAL   BOOKS      203 

Various  reasons  have  been  assigned  for  the  position 
here  accorded  to  Isaiah  : 

1.  The  explanation  offered  in  the  Talmud  is  that  the 
Books  of  Kings  end  in  desolation,  Jeremiah  is  all  deso- 
lation, Ezekiel  begins  in  desolation  and  ends  in  conso- 
lation, Isaiah  is  all  consolation.  Hence  like  is  joined 
with  like,  desolation  with  desolation,  and  consolation 
with  consolation. 

2.  Modern  critics  from  the  time  of  Eichhorn1  have 
sought  to  find  in  it  a  confirmation  of  their  views  respect- 
ing the  composite  character  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  as 
partly  the  genuine  production  of  the  prophet,  and  partly 
belonging  to  the  later  years  of  the  Babylonish  exile.  But 
that  the  authors  of  this  passage  had  no  such  meaning  is 
apparent  from  their  statement  that  "  Hezekiah  and  his 
associates  wrote  the  Book  of  Isaiah,"  see  p.  94,  showing 
that  they  attributed  it  to  the  lifetime  of  Hezekiah  and 
conseqiientlyofthe  prophet  himself.  And  nearly  four 
centuriesTpre vi o u slyj the  author  of  the  Book  of  Ecclesi- 
asticus  (xlviii.  24,  25;  cf.  Isa.  xl.  1,  xlii.  9)  makes  it  evi- 
dent that  Isa.  xl.-lxvi  was  at  that  time  regarded  as  the 
work  of  the  prophet  Isaiah  ;  and  he  names  the  prophets 
in  the  following  order :  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and 
the  Twelve  (xlix.  6-10). 

3.  Herzfeld  (III.  p.  103)  thinks  that  the  books  of  the 
Prophets  are  arranged  according  to  their  respective 
length:  Jeremiah  as  the  longest  stands  first,  Ezekiel 
next,  Isaiah  next,  and  the  Minor  Prophets,  constituting 
one  book,  which  is  shorter  still,  stand  last.    The  treatises 

1  Einleitung,  4th  Edition,  p.  50 ;  Dillmann,  p.  452,  note ;  Strack,  p. 
433;  Davidson,  Canon  of  the  Bible,  pp  93,  94;  Fiirst,  p  16,  who,  while 
professedly  tracing  early  Jewish  tradition,  everywhere  mingles  with  it 
his  own  critical  notions,  proposes  to  alter  the  text  of  the  passage  under 
consideration  into  accordance  with  them,  claiming  that  its  original  form 
may  have  been  "Isaiah  (I.),  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Isaiah  (!!.)•" 


204  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

in  the  several  divisions  of  the  Mishnah  are  arranged  on 
this  principle.1 

4.  Konig  (Einleitung,  p.  459,  note)  seeks  a  reason 
for  this  arrangement  of  the  Prophets  in  the  respective 
distances  to  which  they  were  enabled  to  penetrate  the 
future. 

5.  Marx  (p.  36)  proposes  the  explanation  that  the 
Book  of  Jeremiah  was  placed  before  the  other  prophets 
that  it  might  stand  next  to  Kings,  of  which,  according 
to  Baba  Bathra,  he  was  the  author ;  Ezekiel  follows  as 
his  junior  contemporary;  Isaiah  is  thus  brought  into 
conjunction  with  Hosea,  the  first  of  the  Minor  Prophets, 
who  (Isa.  i.  1;  Hos.  i.  1)  prophesied  under  the  same 
four  kings.2 

While  it  may  be  a  matter  of  curious  speculation  what 
led  to  this  particular  arrangement  of  the  Prophets, 
it  is  of  no  especial  moment,  as  it  was  neither  ancient 
nor  authoritative.  The  passage  in  Baba  Bathra,  with 
which  we  are  now  concerned,  is  preceded  by  inquiries,3 

1  Strack  (p.  433)  gives  Geiger  the  credit  of  having  established  this 
fact. 

2  So  also  Buhl,  p.  38;  Ryle,  p.  228. 

3  Marx  (p.  28)  extracts  the  following  from  the  tract  Baba  Bathra, 
fol.  13b :  "  Our  Rabbis  taught,  It  is  not  forbidden  to  write  the  law, 
prophets  and  hagiographa  in  one  volume :  these  are  the  words  of  R. 
Meir  (an  eminent  doctor  of  the  second  century  a.d.,  a  pupil  of  R. 
Akiba).  R.  Judah  (either  Ben-Hai,  a  contemporary  of  R.  Meir,  or 
Ben-Bethera  of  the  first  century)  says  :  The  law  ought  to  be  written  by 
itself,  the  prophets  by  themselves,  and  the  hagiographa  by  themselves. 
Other  scholars  say  :  Each  book  should  be  written  separately.  R.  Judah 
defends  his  opinion  by  relating  that  Boethus  ben-Zonin  had  the  eight 
prophets  written  together  in  one  volume,  and  this  was  approved  by 
Eleazar  ben-Azariah  (President  of  the  Synod  along  with  the  Patriarch 
Gamaliel  of  the  first  century).  But  some  say  that  the  Prophets  of  Boe- 
thus were  each  written  separately.  The  Rabbi  (Judah  ha-Kadosh, 
writer  of  the  Mishnah  in  the  second  century)  said  :  They  brought  us  the 
law,  prophets,  and  hagiographa  combined  in  one  volume,  and  we  pro- 
nounced it  all  right." 


ORDER   AND   NUMBER   OF   CANONICAL    BOOKS      205 

"whether  it  is  allowable  to  combine  the  law  with  the 
prophets  and  hagiographa  in  one  volume;  and  in  an- 
other place  (Megillah,  fol.  '27a)  the  question  is  asked 
whether  it  is  proper  to  lay  books  of  the  prophets  on  the 
volume  of  the  law.  These  two  questions  show  that  at 
that  time  the  Jews  were  not  in  the  habit  of  writing  all 
the  sacred  books  in  one  volume.  For,  if  they  were,  it 
would  have  been  stated  that  they  had  very  many  books 
containing  the  entire  Scriptures  or  all  the  prophets  or 
all  the  hagiographa.  Among  these  there  certainly  would 
have  been  several  approved  by  distinguished  Rabbis, 
and  not  merely  a  single  volume  of  the  prophets  and  one 
of  the  entire  Old  Testament  of  which  mention  is  made. 
Synagogues  also  and  schools  would  have  been  supplied 
with  copies  venerable  from  age,  so  that  no  one  could  have 
asked  whether  it  was  allowable  to  have  copies  of  this 
sort.  .  .  .  We  have  tried  in  vain  to  discover  a  passage 
in  the  Talmud  which  speaks  of  a  book  of  the  prophets 
or  a  book  of  the  hagiographa  as  a  unit.  Rabbis  often 
mention  old  books  which  contained  the  whole  law,  but 
never  books  containing  either  all  the  prophets  or  all  the 
hagiographa,  except  in  that  one  passage  of  the  tract  Baba 
Bathra  cited  in  the  preceding  note.  .  .  .  When  now 
the  question  arose,  what  order  should  be  adopted  if  all 
the  sacred  books  were  to  be  written  in  one  volume,  it  is 
not  surprising  if  some  would  think  one  order  best  and 
others  another.  We  cannot  consequently  expect  to  find 
in  the  Talmud  a  legally  required  and  anciently  estab- 
lished order,  but  only  what  certain  doctors  thought  true 
and  right."1 

It   is   evident   from    these   considerations,   as   stated 

by   Marx,  that  no  more  weight   can  be  attributed  to 

this   order   prescribed   for   the   books  of  the  prophets 

than  to   the  speculations  contained  in  the  same  para- 

1  Marx,  pp.  29,  30,  33. 


20G  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

graph  concerning  the  origin  of  the  several  books,  see 
p.  94. 

In  the  Talmudic  order  of  the  Hagiographa  Ruth 
stands  first.  The  question  is  asked  why  Job,  whom 
they  referred  to  the  time  of  Moses,  did  not  have  the  first 
place ;  and  the  answer  is  given  that  it  was  not  suitable 
to  begin  with  calamity.  The  real  reason  for  prefixing 
Ruth  to  the  Psalms  probably  is  that  it  records  the  ances- 
try of  David,  by  whom  so  many  of  the  Psalms  were  writ- 
ten. As  some  of  the  Psalms  were  attributed  to  Adam, 
Melchizedek  and  Abraham  (though  committed  to  writing 
by  David),  the  Psalter  is  put  before  Job.  Then  follow 
the  three  books  ascribed  to  Solomon,  Proverbs,  Eccle- 
siastes  and  Song  of  Songs ;  then,  in  chronological  order, 
the  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah,  Daniel,  Esther,  Ezra,  and 
finally  Chronicles,  which  was  attributed  to  Ezra. 

Another  Baraitha1  speaks  of  the  Psalms,  Proverbs, 
and  Job  as  the  three  greater  K'thubhim,  and  the  Song 
of  Songs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Lamentations  as  the  lesser 
K'thubhim.  Fiirst  (pp.  57,  60),  without  any  reason,  con- 
verts this  into  a  distinction  of  older  and  more  recent 
K'thubhim,  and  hence  infers  the  gradual  formation  of 
this  part  of  the  canon ;  that  the  Song  of  Songs  and  Ec- 
clesiastes were  a  comparatively  late  addition,  and  that 
Esther  had  not  yet  been  advanced  to  canonical  dignity 
when  this  phraseology  became  current.  But  no  such 
consequences  follow  from  the  use  of  this  simple  phrase. 
In  the  Talmudic  arrangement  the  six  poetical  books 
stand  together  and  spontaneously  divide  themselves  into 
three  of  larger  and  three  of  smaller  size. 

The  Talmudic  arrangement  of  the  books  is  only  fol- 
lowed in  a  very  limited  number  of  Hebrew  manuscripts, 
which  are  specified  in  detail  by  Strack  (p.  441).  The 
Massoretic  arrangement,  which  according  to  Elias  Levita 
1  Berachoth,  fol.  57b. 


ORDER   AND   NUMBER   OF   CANONICAL   BOOKS      207 

is  followed  chiefly  by  the  Spanish  manuscripts,  is  in  the 
Prophets :  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  the  Twelve ;  and 
in  the  Hagiographa :  Chronicles,  Psalms,  Job,  Proverbs, 
Ruth,  Song  of  Songs,  Ecclesiastes,  Lamentations,  Esther, 
Daniel,  Ezra.  In  this  order  Isaiah  is  restored  to  its 
proper  chronological  place.  Chronicles  leads  the  Hagi- 
ographa because  its  genealogies  begin  with  Ada  in  ; 
Ruth  is  transposed  so  as  to  stand  with  the  smaller 
K'thubhim,  and  Esther  is  transposed  with  Daniel  for  a 
like  reason. 

The  German  manuscripts,  followed  by  the  printed 
editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  adopt  a  different  order 
still  in  the  Hagiographa.  The  three  large  poetical  books 
stand  first,  Proverbs  as  the  work  of  Solomon  being 
transposed  with  Job,  so  as  to  stand  next  to  the  Psalms 
of  David ;  then  the  five  small  books  called  Megilloth  in 
the  order  of  the  festivals  upon  which  they  are  read  in 
the  Synagogues;  then  Daniel,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah, 
chronologically  disposed ;  and  finally  Chronicles,  which 
with  its  genealogies  and  its  history,  extending  from 
Adam  to  the  end  of  the  Babylonish  exile,  forms  a 
suitable  appendix  to  the  entire  volume  of  Scripture. 

The  Jewish  authorities,  whom  Jerome  followed  in  his 
Prologus  Galeatus  (his  helmed  prologue,  intended  as  a 
defence  against  the  intrusion  of  apocryphal  books  into 
the  canon),  joined  Ruth  with  Judges,  Lamentations  with 
Jeremiah,  and  arranged  the  Hagiographa  thus:  Job, 
Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs,  Daniel, 
Chronicles,  Ezra  with  Nehemiah,  and  Esther.  Job  is 
probably  put  before  the  Psalms  on  the  assumption  that 
it  was  written  by  Moses  or  in  his  time ;  Chronicles  be- 
fore Ezra  as  the  proper  historical  order;  and  Esther 
last  on  the  supposition  shared  by  Josephus  that  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah  lived  under  Xerxes,  and  that  Ahasuerus 
was  his  son  Artaxerxes. 


208  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

In  the  Septuagint  the  threefold  division  of  the  canon 
is  abandoned,  and  the  fourfold  classification  into  the 
Law  of  Moses,  the  Historical,  Poetical,  and  Prophetical 
Books  substituted  in  its  stead.  It  is  not  worth  while 
here  to  detail  the  various  arrangements  of  the  books, 
which  are  found  in  early  Christian  catalogues  and  in  the 
manuscripts  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Bibles.1 

There  was  a  great  diversity  likewise  in  ancient  cata- 
logues in  their  enumeration  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, though  without  any  real  difference  in  the  extent 
of  the  canon.  The  difference  lay  merely  in  the  various 
modes  of  grouping  and  counting  the  very  same  books. 
We  have  already  seen  that  it  was  usual  to  reckon  Sam- 
uel, Kings,  the  twelve  Minor  Prophets  and  Chronicles 
as  each  one  book,  and  to  count  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  as 
together  constituting  one.  Then  (p.  87)  if  Ruth  was 
joined  to  Judges,  and  Lamentations  to  Jeremiah,  the 
total  was  22 ;  if  Buth  and  Lamentations  were  each 
counted  separately,  it  was  24.  The  22  books  were 
sometimes  divided  into  four  Pentateuchs  or  groups  of 
five  :  1.  The  five  books  of  Moses.  2.  Five  historical 
books,  Joshua,  Judges,  Sami  ?1,  Kings,  and  Chronicles. 
3.  Five  poetical  books,  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesi- 
astes,  and  Song  of  Solomon.  4.  Five  prophetical  books, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  and  the  Minor  Proph- 
ets.    Ezra  and  Esther  were  supernumeraries. 

Epiphanius  and  Jerome  mention  that  they  were  some- 
times reckoned  27,  or  equal  to  the  Hebrew  alphabet  with 
the  five  final  letters  added.  Thus  Jerome  says :  "As 
there  are  five  letters  with  double  forms  in  the  alphabet, 
so  there  are  five  double  books  in  the  canon,  viz. :  Samuel, 
Kings,  Chronicles,  Ezra  with  Nehemiah,  and  Jeremiah 

1  Several  of  these  are  given  in  Ryle  (pp.  213-218),  and  Excursus  C 
(pp.  281,  282)  And  a  much  more  detailed  list  may  be  found  in  Hody, 
De  Bibliorum  Textibus  Originalibus  (pp.  644-664). 


ORDER   AND   NUMBER  OF   CANONICAL   BOOKS      209 

with  Lamentations."  If  each  of  the  books  thus  paired 
together  be  counted  separately,  the  whole  number  will 
be  27.  Then  if  in  addition  Ruth  be  separated  from 
Judges,  the  number  will  be  28. 1 

Again  they  have  been  counted  33,  which,  with  the 
27  books  of  the  New  Testament,  makes  60  in  the  entire 
Bible,  a  number  which  was  associated  with  the  GO 
queens  of  the  Song  of  Solomon  (vi.  8).  This  is  made 
out  by  uniting  the  books  as  in  counting  22,  only  reck- 
oning the  Minor  Prophets  as  twelve  instead  of  one. 
Finally,  if  all  the  books  are  counted  separately,  the 
number  will  be  39,  as  in  the  English  Bible. 

1  So  reckoned  by  John  Ferus  (a.d.  1.540),  as  stated  by  Cosin,  p.  202. 
14 


rn^ 


n  ^  -i<n 


Date  Due 


<~clt\  Or)  j 


FACULT 


g21fc 


71 


j^^rj^/jr 


"r  -•''„ 


ULV 


**pwppp 


BS1135.G79  1906 

General  introduction  to  the  Old 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00007  0690 


m 


\\    - 


IMwm 


